Mach 11 hypersonic missiles? Is it even possible to intercept something going that fast without your interceptor tearing itself apart?
Absolutely! The US ABM shield is meant to intercept incoming ICBMs, which in terminal velocity will be in excess of Mach 20. The difficulty with speed isnt that the interceptor will “tear itself apart” it’s just that it means less margin for error when plotting your intercept course
AFAIK US doesn't have any ABM system that can intercept mach 20 ICBMs, let alone in terminal phase. The closest was FTM-44 in 2020 that hit an "ICBM representative" target midcourse in "highly favourable", i.e. not operational conditions. Which doesn't reveal speed of mock target, but IIRC there was testimony to subcommittee on strategic forces a couple years ago where director of missile defense stated US does not have systems to track "much less intercept" missiles going at mach20, suggesting limits of current capabilities. I would guess not much more than mach10, seeing how few Fattah 1s (mach10-15) were not intercepted in last round of ballistic attacks against Israel in October, where USS Bulkeley (which has ANSPY6V1 / aka highend AEGIS BMD) was trying to shoot them down with SM3s. Granted we don't know interception % of Bulkely, or how many they tried to intercept, but a lot of "high"end Iranian missiles (really medium tier) got through.
Shooting down nukes with mini nukes during terminal interception, i.e. over your soil is probably only going to fly during cold war hysteria. Safeguard was about protecting nukes in silos before SSBNs added survivability to triad.
I suggest: https://cnc.fandom.com/wiki/Firestorm_wall_section
Unconvinced :) Maybe something more like this? https://duckduckgo.com/texas+tesla+tower
But this still has to get reliable ännärdshy from somewhere, so the possible synergy between modular mini nuke plants to power on site atmospheric capture of CO² to produce clean synfuels still applies!1!!
Or maybe we could have an HVTC (High Voltage Teslatronic Current) atmospheric supersmartgrid, made out of a network of these.
(Bzzzt Brrzzzzt Bzzzt Brrzzzzt)
I bet there are nuclear tipped interceptors too, though that wouldn't be public. Its a lot easier to destroy the incoming missile if your margin of error is a few miles versus a few meters. Not to mention it would blot out all the multiple re-entry vehicles. The public wouldn't want to know that's the plan but it would sure beat nukes detonating in cities.
I even remember reading about how the Soviets planned to chain detonate nukes over Moscow in the event of an exchange to destroy incoming ICMBs.
GMD is hit-to-kill. Though I should point out that it’s broadly useless.
GMD is only capable of taking out 10-20 missiles at once. Russia and China both have hundreds of missiles, and if the DPRK isn’t there yet they will be soon. GMD is essentially useless at preventing a first strike. It was ostensibly meant for if a rogue state managed to launch a handful of ICBMs at the US, a scenario that really isn’t likely. What it would be useful for, is if the US were to strike first and take out the majority of the enemy’s missiles on the ground. To be clear, I don’t think that is why the US built it, and that isn’t part of the strategic thinking. But that possibility is exactly what Russia and China suspect about GMD. Hence their expansion of new weapons.
Yeah exactly. Shooting hundreds of bullets with your bullets. And each bullet you need to shoot breaks into smaller bullets upon re-entry that start randomly maneuvering. Hit to kill is just not practical against a peer firing hundreds of ICBMs.
That's why I suspect the US never stopped developing nuclear tipped ABMs with the Sprint I and II programs. They just went dark. It's the only logical way to defend against the only existential threat we face, and DC is gonna be first struck so you can bet the political class is incentivized to develop this.
Why keep it secret? Well first it interferes with MAD which is very destabilizing. Also its good to hold your most important cards close to your chest. And there's the fact that the public would be uncomfortable with the idea that our plan to survive involves so much radiation being thrown around. A lot of incentive to not talk about it...
I don’t think that makes sense. Where are the vast stockpiles of missiles? The silos? The thousands of people who would need to be on ready alert to launch those missiles? This also would require the US to have been cheating on the START treaties and probably the ABM treaty when it was in effect as well.
Also, nuclear-tipped ABM systems aren’t some sort of super power. Remember that all of this is happening in space at very high speeds. The Nike Zeus had to get within a kilometer of the target warhead before detonating. It’s not like you could throw a couple of these up and knock hundreds of incoming warheads out of the sky.
Has it been demoed/tested against hypersonic missiles?
Ugh, I really hate that term. “Hypersonic” just means traveling faster than 5 times the speed of sound. We’ve had ballistic missiles capable of exceeding that speed since the 1950s. ICBMs are hypersonic. So, yes, GMD has been tested against hypersonic missiles.
The latest hype is around “hypersonic glide body” type weapons. Where instead of traveling a straight ballistic trajectory they have small control surfaces and are capable of maneuvering. Ironically, though, having to maneuver like that makes such missiles slower, not faster, than an equivalent ballistic missile. And their maneuverability isn’t exactly huge, because at those speeds even small turns will impose significant g forces. So there’s this weird tradeoff between speed and maneuverability.
I think the question was about hypersonic cruise, specifically whether ABM systems can detect a signature.
Hm yes, but depending on course/great circle distance ballistic missiles have an apogaeum between 1200km to 4500km. While anything which is 'boosted back down there' during ascent reaches maybe 300km max height, then doing 'skip reentry' stuff and/or powered steering at 100km to 200km. Which is less distance to cover.
Strange dynamic here. Like, Russia invades Ukraine, and heavily bombs it.
And then when finally Ukraine bombs Russia back a little, somehow Russia's the victim and now they have to escalate?
What cry-bully narcissist cunts.
I actually don’t think that’s why Russia responded. The announcement about being able to us US missiles on Russian territory occurred too quickly for them to have launched this is response. I think this is Russias response to the opening of the Aegis Ashore ballistic missile shield in Poland, which has been in progress for years and just recently was made operational
> announcement about being able to us US missiles on Russian territory occurred too quickly for them to have launched this is response
Why? It’s a missile. It’s meant to be fired on short notice.
It’s a missile that has been developed in secret, for years. With a conventional payload, so that it could actually be used in a demonstration strike like this. That was apparently completed just in time to be used here. Makes sense that it is a reaction to the Aegis Ashore base in Poland, since that has been under way for years, the completion date could be predicted and planned for well in advance, and is of grave concern to the Russian state. Putin himself has constantly expressed concern about those missile defense bases, he’s very concerned that they could secretly loaded with nuclear-tipped tomahawk missiles and used for a sudden first strike.
It’s a bit academic, of course, why Russia decided to reveal the existence of this missile now, and employ it in Ukraine. It’s not like there’s only one reason why Russia did this.
Alternatively: it was a missile test aimed at a live target.
> he’s very concerned that they could secretly loaded with nuclear-tipped tomahawk missiles and used for a sudden first strike.
Putin knows that wouldn't happen, he's concerned about his own arsenal being neutralized.
Aegis really can’t intercept ICBMs except in very niche circumstances.
The US and NATO just need to curb-stomp Russia out of Ukraine.
The fact is, the US has enough active missile defense that if all out nuclear war were to happen, the US would likely survive and Russia wouldn't. Meaning that all of Russia's nuclear threats are empty, as long as we don't strike first with a nuclear weapon.
Now just employ a little game theory. Russia sabre rattling = they get what they want, mostly, with no risk because the west won't strike first because of reasons. Russia actually using nuclear weapons = their entire civilization disappears for the rest of time.
The west just needs to call their very obvious bluff, otherwise all the indecision will slowly but surely wear away at our alliances, our culture, we'll let them conquer small countries one by one, and we'll eventually lose significance in the world as other countries realize we're weak.
Let's be real, 70% or so of the world's population live under dictatorships. They all want to destroy the west and are acting together to destroy the west. Russia and China leading their shitty alliance with everyone cheering them on. Either we defend freedom and democracy or we'll eventually be overrun by hybrid warfare, fracturing alliances, shifting demographics, etc...
> The fact is, the US has enough active missile defense that if all out nuclear war were to happen, the US would likely survive and Russia wouldn't
This is just blatantly false. GMD, on paper, could intercept maybe 10-20 missiles by design. And the accuracy and reliability of that system is severely in question. The Aegis Ballistic Missile defense really can’t be expected to intercept ICBMs either, outside of certain conditions.
If we're being completely honest here, neither you, I, nor the guy you replied to has any idea what missile defenses we have. They would be among the most secret of programs because they only work if your enemy doesn't actively work to evade them.
we've seen aircrafts drop out of the sky and also vanish
> The US and NATO just need to curb-stomp Russia out of Ukraine.
"just". If they could, done it would be. Western delusion is in an all time high. You lose.
> US has enough active missile defense that if all out nuclear war were to happen, the US would likely survive and Russia wouldn't
What? We absolutely don’t. Even if our missile defences work 1:1, that doesn’t account for decoys.
We should curb stomp Putin because the precedent he’s set, if accepted, will lead to nuclear war by prompting a global cascade of wars of conquest.
The US has at least 799 operational THAAD interceptors. Source: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12645/2
56 Aegis BMD equipped ships. Source: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL33745.pdf Japan also has 8 equipped ships.
Operational land-based Aegis BMD sites in Poland, Romania and the US.
Given how well Russian technology has performed in Ukraine versus American technology, I'd put money on American tech. I'd also put money on the US having systems that aren't public knowledge.
Russia's sabre rattling has grown increasingly unhinged and frequent which suggests they feel the same way.
Edit - should mention, it's thought that Russia has ~300 operational ICBMs. Also, I don't think our systems would be 100% effective. But I think they'd be effective enough that the US would survive.
So let's say the US could shoot down everything Russia throws at them, could tell apart all of the decoys, intercept every single MIRV warhead and take out every other secret weapon Russia may have deployed. It doesn't take many hits to take out a big chunk of the US population and wipe out its economy, so that would have to be done at 100% success rate over large parts of the country.
Europe cannot do anything remotely like that, so close to everything west of the Ural would burn and pretty much everyone there would die, hundreds of millions of dead and God knows how many more further to the east. The soot from burning cities and forests would darken the whole northern hemisphere for several growing seasons, large parts of the US population would probably just freeze or starve, more so if the US has been hit as well. And that leaves out fallout dispersal, especially from the inventories of nuclear power plants hit with nukes and so on.
There simply is no winning an all-out nuclear war.
> The soot from burning cities and forests would darken the whole northern hemisphere for several growing seasons
There's already been over 2000 nuclear warhead detonations and nothing remotely like that has happened. In fact, the fallout isn't noticeable at all. Granted, the tests were in remote locations, but all the planetary effects people worry about haven't happened at all.
> Europe cannot do anything remotely like that
Several European nations do have missiles capable of taking out ICBMs, on top of US Aegis sites, seaborne Aegis sites, Patriot batteries, etc...
> There simply is no winning an all-out nuclear war
Depends on what you consider winning. I agree it's bad. But equally bad is allowing dictatorships to do whatever they want because they have nukes. Which is where we're at. One day it's Ukraine, the next it's Lithuania, then it's Romania, Finland or Poland. Or maybe Taiwan. Then Japan. And so on. Where do we draw the line?
> already been over 2000 nuclear warhead detonations and nothing remotely like that has happened
They said "soot from burning cities and forests." Nothing about fallout.
This hits a lil closer to home. This summer I lost my home when half our town burnt down in a 32,000 hectare forest fire. The other half is untouched and there's not even soot on the town, nevermind into the atmosphere. Massive amounts of boreal forest burn yearly. So their scenario is pure speculation with zero basis in reality.
> Massive amounts of boreal forest burn yearly. So their scenario is pure speculation with zero basis in reality.
It's speculation shared by nuclear and climate scientists.
15 million hectares burned in Canada alone in 2023. We average over 2 million hectares of burnt forest per year.
Some quick maths. 15 million ha is 150,000km2. Tsar Bomba blast area was 16km2. It would take over 9000 Tsar Bombas to burn as much forest as only Canada's 2023 forest fire season.
Maybe provide some source for your assertion...
Link 1 is talking about blast effect which is a different topic altogether, link 2 is paywalled and is a magazine, not anything scholarly.
> Link 1 is talking about blast effect which is a different topic altogether
One, no—it’s about fire effects. It’s in the title.
Two, you literally cited blast area to estimate burn area.
Three, do you need a source for fires being able to spread? If I toss a match into a dry forest, is the area of the matchhead a predictor of particulate volume?
> Given how well Russian technology has performed in Ukraine versus American technology, I'd put money on American tech
Capable of carrying 1,185 warheads. Plus decoys.
The “T” in THAAD stands for terminal. That means the warheads and decoys must be targeted separately. We’d need thousands of THAAD interceptors to even begin to feel comfortable about surviving, as a republic, a Russian nuclear exchange. (To say nothing of such an exchange immediately leaving us intensely vulnerable to China.)
Our missile defences protect against rogue nuclear states. North Korea. Some day, Iran. They are not intended to defeat MAD.
> The “T” in THAAD stands for terminal.
Yes. Terminal means the downward phase of a ballistic missile's flight. THAAD can target them before they reenter the atmosphere. That's the point.
And other BMD systems are designed to target them in the earlier phases of flight.
> THAAD can target them before they reenter the atmosphere
Not relevant. They've already separated. That means you have to count warheads and decoys, not missiles.
THAAD cannot intercept ICBMs…
