ICBM intercept

Even if it's not a practical system, the very idea of it is an effective deterrent, even against crazies like North Korea.

>>9073510
Operation: Hand Of God

While the nuke is launching hit the thing with an ice beam.
Watch it fall back on their sorry asses and detonate upon launch.

>>9073510
It would be very challenging. And it isn't worth it since 1. It's a fucking pain getting your intercept missile up there in the first place and you don't have room for the 1000% extra fuel needed for maneuvers, 2. Now that your intercept missiles are 1000x as expensive, the enemy can set missiles to self destruct when captured or launch decoys, 3. Interceptor missiles have a very low accuracy against real targets, so I wouldn't expect a missile loaded down with extra fuel to be able to hit as often. Also, you can now have a lot fewer missiles since each is way more expensive, and 4. ICBMs are easier to develop than intercept missiles so any nation with interceptors should be able to build their own ICBMs anyway, which they could launch in retaliation.

Basically, it probably is possible, but nowhere near worth the time and money. Not cost effective.

>>9073510

>Our biggest defense against nukes are our ability to intercept and destroy missiles before they reach their target

Historically, MAD has a 100% success rate in preventing nuclear attack. Shooting down an incoming missile attack has never been attempted

>>9073510
>Basically when they launch a missile, you commandeer it and stear it back at the enemy.
1) nuclear detonations (as opposed to meltdowns or "fizzles") are inherently hard to trigger
2) nobody wants an accidental nuclear detonation in handling, so a lot of design effort goes into ensuring that any damage to the nuke prevents it from detonating rather than causing it to detonate
3) rockets are inherently unreliable, so there's a significant chance that any launched ICBM will land near the point of departure, in the territory of the people launching it
4) nobody wants a nuke to go off in the wrong place, so a lot of design effort goes into ensuring that a nuke won't go off unless it first travels to its intended target area

There is zero additional value to steering a nuclear warhead back at the enemy, compared to simply intercepting and destroying it. You won't be able to set it off in their territory.

>>9074206
>Historically, MAD has a 100% success rate in preventing nuclear attack.
Historically, every living drunk driver has a 100% success rate in surviving his drunk drives.

>Shooting down an incoming missile attack has never been attempted
A nuclear missile attack has never been attempted. Shooting down other kinds of missile attacks is attempted quite regularly in war zones, and is reasonably effective. ICBMs are interesting because they have a relatively long coast phase. You've got way more time to shoot them down than with a short-range missile attack.

I think it's unlikely that one of the minor nuclear powers like North Korea could succeed in an ICBM nuclear attack on the USA. They can't afford enough missiles to overwhelm defenses.

>>9073543
>ICBMs are easier to develop than intercept missiles so any nation with interceptors should be able to build their own ICBMs anyway, which they could launch in retaliation.
You're assuming comparable resources and technology, which isn't the case in a conflict like USA vs. North Korea.

>>9074234
Like I said, interceptors are harder to develop. North Korea very well could have ICBMs, but they definitely don't have interceptor missiles. They're much more on track for the former.

File: v bnv v.jpg (31KB, 311x378px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 311x378px

Why not just put thousands upon thousands of thermonuclear bomb operated single use gamma-ray lasers in orbit?

Problem solved.

Does the Ground Based Midcourse Defense have any future? Can THAAD or SM-3 take out ICBMs, or be modified to do so? Are interceptor missiles just a meme until practical rail guns and lasers?

>>9073510
or you just shoot their missile down, and then shoot one back?