The people saying that it is difficult or impossible because of "PhYsIcS" are operating on information that was true when they were young researchers/students studying the state of the art at that time.
Now they are old, and things have changed.
Targets approaching a modern ABM platform at 2-7km/s can be engaged with a very high chance of success. It's not even that expensive. The Patriots in Ukraine can do it.
This isn't my opinion it is fact. There are photographs of the shattered remains of Russian MRBMs with approach velocities of 6km/s littering the Ukranian countryside.
It would take additional research and development to move 10km/s intercepts from "experimental but possible" to "very high probability" bin. R&D that is expensive, but not impossible.
I say 10km/s because russia is targeting 10km/s for all of their new wonder weapons. They are targeting 10km/s because they, like I, know that practically anything <10km/s is "doable".
Assuming perfect conditions and perfect technology... let's say you do manage to intercept a nuclear ICBM by shooting it down. But then what happens? Wouldn't you risk triggering the nuclear warhead wherever the shot-down missile lands? (Or, even better/worse, in the air?)
It takes well-calibrated electronics detonating conventional explosives with precise timing to set off a nuclear warhead. The warhead maybe would fizzle but wouldn't detonate because you intercepted. And anyway, it's much better to have it detonate anywhere besides where it was targetted
> It takes well-calibrated electronics detonating conventional explosives with precise timing to set off a nuclear warhead.
The need for precise control and timing is true for plutonium implosion-style devices but not true for uranium gun-style ones. Gun-style detonators just need to smash two lumps of uranium together. You better hope the interceptor completely demolishes the aforementioned lumps of uranium instead of ramming one into the other.
We're not that concerned about uranium gun devices, because they aren't really worthwhile to make. Their yields aren't high enough to justify the cost relative to conventional weapons. And explosive disassembly of the device is still likely to cause the nuclear element to fail. There's a reason the world basically gave up on them.
Nuclear tipped interceptors seem like the only surefire way to protect yourself against icbms, however they have their own numerous drawbacks. New innovative solutions are needed.
I think this is a dumb idea.
It is a dumb idea.
BUT.
The people saying that it is difficult or impossible because of "PhYsIcS" are operating on information that was true when they were young researchers/students studying the state of the art at that time.
Now they are old, and things have changed.
Targets approaching a modern ABM platform at 2-7km/s can be engaged with a very high chance of success. It's not even that expensive. The Patriots in Ukraine can do it.
This isn't my opinion it is fact. There are photographs of the shattered remains of Russian MRBMs with approach velocities of 6km/s littering the Ukranian countryside.
It would take additional research and development to move 10km/s intercepts from "experimental but possible" to "very high probability" bin. R&D that is expensive, but not impossible.
I say 10km/s because russia is targeting 10km/s for all of their new wonder weapons. They are targeting 10km/s because they, like I, know that practically anything <10km/s is "doable".
It is not the 90s anymore.
Assuming perfect conditions and perfect technology... let's say you do manage to intercept a nuclear ICBM by shooting it down. But then what happens? Wouldn't you risk triggering the nuclear warhead wherever the shot-down missile lands? (Or, even better/worse, in the air?)
It takes well-calibrated electronics detonating conventional explosives with precise timing to set off a nuclear warhead. The warhead maybe would fizzle but wouldn't detonate because you intercepted. And anyway, it's much better to have it detonate anywhere besides where it was targetted
> It takes well-calibrated electronics detonating conventional explosives with precise timing to set off a nuclear warhead.
The need for precise control and timing is true for plutonium implosion-style devices but not true for uranium gun-style ones. Gun-style detonators just need to smash two lumps of uranium together. You better hope the interceptor completely demolishes the aforementioned lumps of uranium instead of ramming one into the other.
We're not that concerned about uranium gun devices, because they aren't really worthwhile to make. Their yields aren't high enough to justify the cost relative to conventional weapons. And explosive disassembly of the device is still likely to cause the nuclear element to fail. There's a reason the world basically gave up on them.
Nuclear tipped interceptors seem like the only surefire way to protect yourself against icbms, however they have their own numerous drawbacks. New innovative solutions are needed.
Does anyone else hear "Golden Dome" and think it must have been the name of an option from Epstein's menu that Trump remembers fondly?