in regard to "Missile Defense"

[LiberallyInclined]

I just saw a report that there was another missile defense test today(yesterday?) that went bad- the interceptor missile never fired, for the second time in a row...and at $85 million/test, those two failures alone flushed $170million of our money down the toilet...

maybe i'm naive about it or something...but if we're trying to shoot down what would presumably be a nuclear warhead coming at us, why can't we use a nuclear warhead against it? if we were able to use it high enough in the atmosphere, it shouldn't cause destruction on the ground, and we wouldn't have to be so extremely accurate- i.e. "hitting a bullet with a bullet".

can someone explain to me why nukes wouldn't work as well as anything else as far as "missile defense"?

and yes, i realize that the whole program is just a big rip-off as a way to funnel money into the military-industrial complex...yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah...that's not the diatribe i'm looking for here- i just want to know why nukes can't seem to be considered for missile defense?

[jody]

1. A nuclear blast on earth depends upon the atmosphere for much of the

collateral damage. Sans atmosphere, the circular area of probability is much smaller than on earth.

[Solon]

2. For one, nukes are heavier on average than interceptors....

Interceptors are designed to cause the Missle to explode its fuel, not the warhead. Also, even Ballistic Missles are not known for pinpoint accuracy, and while this wouldn't be needed in a case like this, it would still have to detonate within a half a mile or less of the incoming missle, in other words, no chance in hell of happening. Also, another note, fallout, even from the high atmosphere, would be bad, and cause many deaths down the road if not immediately, because it is high up in the air, it will travel.

[dxdem]

3. If I remember correctly,

an aerial burst of a nuclear weapon is more devastating then a ground impact. And nuclear fallout washing throughout the atmosphere to who knows where? This, of course, being an uneducated opinion...I may be wrong.

[ashmanonar]

6. it's not really the fallout that should be worried about.

it's the electro-magnetic pulse.

see, when a nuke detonates in atmosphere, the energy (almost pure energy) from the detonation causes heat (and consequently a shockwave of ionized air) which blasts the surrounding area.

but when a nuke detonates in vacuum, it actually has a broader detonation range: but the electromagnetic energy doesn't get converted to heat in the (nonexistent) air. the em enerrgy stays pristine, and spreads out for a long ways: thus electromagnetic pulse. that pulse can take out electronics on the ground or in the air (unless they're hardened, unlikely unless it's special military stuff). essentially, if you set off a nuke above the atmosphere above earth, specifically above the area of earth it's above: it would shut down EVERYTHING electromagnetic. computers, radio, tv, satellites, EVERYTHING.

so it's a very bad idea to set off a nuke in space near electronics.

[LiberallyInclined]

9. so it would be a better idea to let a hydrogen bomb destroy chicago?

than to set off a nuke in space near electronics?

that one you're gonna have to explain to me.

[General Zod]

4. The Russian system uses nukes....

...Under the old ABM treaty, both sides could have up to 100 launchers for an ABM system. The Russians had theirs around Moscow. They were all nuclear tipped.

The system we used, called Safeguard, was used to defend the Minuteman fields around Minot. It was deactivated after a few days, as the military found it unreliable.

[htuttle]

5. A sub-orbital nuke over North America would wipe out our economy

...in a nanosecond. The electromagnetic pulse would zap every non-shielded computer chip in line of sight of the blast (and probably a bunch that were improperly shielded).

Of course, the exact effects and range would depend on how big it was, and how high up it was, but it's likely to cause a lot of damage in most cases.

Back in the '50's when they developed the original nuke-tipped ABMs, this wasn't a big concern -- there were no computer chips. Nowdays, it's a big concern. At least it should be.

[LiberallyInclined]

8. and a nuclear strike on say new york or chicago is preferable because...?

it seems to me that detonating even several small nukes in the upper atmosphere to ward off a hydrogen bomb hitting my hometown would be acceptable.

[immoderate]

7. What appears wrong to me,

is that in space with no atmosphere to carry the shock wave, and barring a direct hit, the heat of the blast would have to kill the incoming missile. The missiles approach each other at thousands of miles per hour, that's a few miles every second. They will be within 5 miles of each other for about a second.

The nuclear device would have to be detonated a few seconds prior and directly in the path. Let's say it makes targeting no easier.

Also some people might object to vaporizing plutonium in the upper atmosphere.

--IMM