ps418

Reagan's dream of a missile defense system still a long way off. Launch-phase interception probably not feasible, according to a report by the American Physical Society. Space-based interception will be very difficult also, but not impossible. On the other hand, the most likely origin for a missile attack against the US is N. Korea, in which case a space interception over the Pacific would be achievable. At any rate, I think the most likely nuclear threat would be a small device detonated in a harbor or in a city, rather than a ballistic missile.

One thing this article doesn't mention is the possibility that a missile shield may be easily fooled by decoys, such as decoy rockets or big mylar balloons deployed in space, or whether a nuclear enemy would try to increase the probability of a hit by launching many warheads.

Timing is fatal flaw for missile defense


Patrick

sweep

sorry. I don't have much to say in the way of science, but instead of spending billions on defence, how about spending that money to buy presents for other poorer countries. That way they'll think twice about a preemptive strike, and significantly reduce the chances of loose ICBM's.

SimplyAtheistic

Or they will sell those presents and develop many more nuclear devices. If a country does not like the U.S., I doubt much will change their mind.
Jake

Worldtraveller

I have a friend currently working on the airborne laser program at Boeing, and that seems to be the best project that the government has for this at the moment. Of course there are all kinds of drawbacks to it.
1. You have to keep an aircraft or ship within range of any potential enemy launch facility, providing ample extra targets for a first strike.
2. Most of these systems are single shot with long recharge time, requiring multiple systems for any kind of reliable defense, whch brings us back to point 1.
3. Any country with a large land mass could simply hide thier weapons deep in the center of the country. Consider the U.S.: anyone wanting to mount an effective defense agoinst our rather extensive ICBM network would pretty much be out of luck with even the best of our technology, simply based on the geographical size of the states.

The engineering involved in an sort of defense is always going to be orders of magnitute higher than the improvements to the offensive system that will quickly make the defensive system obsolete again....vicious circle, but it keeps us engineers employed!

ps418

I agree that we should do more for other countries.

However, I'm all for a missile shield - - if it works reliably. I have no confidence whatsoever that currently-planned models will work in any real-world situation.

Plus, as I said I think a far, far more likely scenario is that a small device will be smuggled into the target area in a vehicle, not launched with an intercontinental missile. This is especially likely option for countries with a small amount of fissile material to work with.

Would you rather make one big device that may blow up on the launch pad, explode midcourse, and would make your own country the target of a nuclear counterattack, or would you rather send out ten teams each with a 1 kiloton device to blow up in major cities?

Patrick