Nuclear Defence

[All Seeing Eye]

What types of defences and technology could be utilised now or perhaps developed in the near future that would be capable of defending against, stopping and/or destroying nuclear weapons fired from one country to another?

Are there any technological possibilities for defending against inbound nuclear attack other than the possibilities already on the table? in other words do you yourself have any ideas for technology and defences that nobody else has had the brains to come up with?

Would ground based defences or orbital defences be most effective in combating incoming nuclear attack?

What are the difficulties currently faced in combating possible incoming nuclear attacks?

 

[Zachary Smith]

^^

Here is what we need:

In matters of aggression, we will give them absolute power over us. This power will not be able to be revoked. At the first sign of violence, they will act automatically against the aggressor. The penalty for provoking their action shall be too terrible to risk. The result would be we will live in peace, without arms or armies, secure in the knowledge that we are free from aggression and war. Free to pursue more... profitable enterprises.



Serious response: The REAL nuclear threat presently comes from two different arenas--

1. Emerging nations using nukes against one another (i.e. Pakistan/India). This is NOT a direct threat toward us but does present the risk of widening a local conflict severely. As devastating as it might be, it would be a regional problem for the most part and a limited exchange of weapons. If such an exchange were to occur, it would be self-limiting, either because the nations involved would have only a few usable nukes or outside nations would very quickly need to respond militarily to stabilize the situation so that damage to surrounding people and lands is minimal.

2. The TRUE danger to the US is not from a full-scale, cold-war nuclear assault with ICBMs dropping from the sky. Ain't EVER gonna happen. That risk is passed. We don't NEED a "nuclear missile" shield because that is NOT how anyone with the remotest sense would attack us and no one without sense is going to be able to construct an arsenal of nuclear tipped long-range missiles. Not even North Korea (a place which has NO sense IMHO).

The threat comes from nukes being smuggled across the border and planted in our cities. This might be done by terrorists or agents of rogue nations or God knows who. It i also damn near impossible to guard against. If such a scenario plays out and the source weapon is traced to a nation that can plausible guarantee that the material was STOLEN, even our options at response are very limited. If, however, say there is a terrorist strike and the weapon material can be traced to a known sponsor of terror or a place that might flagrantly violate International Laws on proliferation (as NK might if they get to the stage of being able to manufacture more than a few pseudo-nukes or possibly iran somewhere down the road), we respond against that nation as if we were attacked BY that nation. End of story. No quarter asked, no quarter given.

 

[Brent]

The threat comes from nukes being smuggled across the border and planted in our cities. This might be done by terrorists or agents of rogue nations or God knows who. It i also damn near impossible to guard against. If such a scenario plays out and the source weapon is traced to a nation that can plausible guarantee that the material was STOLEN, even our options at response are very limited. If, however, say there is a terrorist strike and the weapon material can be traced to a known sponsor of terror or a place that might flagrantly violate International Laws on proliferation (as NK might if they get to the stage of being able to manufacture more than a few pseudo-nukes or possibly iran somewhere down the road), we respond against that nation as if we were attacked BY that nation. End of story. No quarter asked, no quarter given.

I tend to agree, this is the future of warfare in our country sadly. Once a nuke is over here, how do you track it down and stop it before it is detonated is the hard part. Once it is detonated of course, there is no stopping it, the damage will be done.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Yes but smuggling nukes aside. Let's say some unforeseen event causes Russia to decide to start flinging nukes (however unlikely that may sound). Is there any technology (other than perhaps firing another missile to hit it) capable of stopping an inbound nuke?

Do you have any ideas of your own on how we could combat incoming nukes?

Is there anything the engineers/scientists haven't thought of as a means to defend against them?

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Maybe if we take a circular racetrack, and have llamas in the track, they could run repeatedly around the track, picking up more velocity each time.

When the llamas have reached an incredible velocity, a gate could be opened leading to a steep ramp. The llamas would become airborne, and could then intercept and eat the inbound nuke.

 

[Zachary Smith]

Yes but smuggling nukes aside. Let's say some unforeseen event causes Russia to decide to start flinging nukes (however unlikely that may sound). Is there any technology (other than perhaps firing another missile to hit it) capable of stopping an inbound nuke?

Do you have any ideas of your own on how we could combat incoming nukes?

Is there anything the engineers/scientists haven't thought of as a means to defend against them?

In all seriousness, what IS your fascination with trying to devise overly complicated technological solutions to problems which don't really exist? It seems an obsession with you . . . .

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Maybe if we take a circular racetrack, and have llamas in the track, they could run repeatedly around the track, picking up more velocity each time.

When the llamas have reached an incredible velocity, a gate could be opened leading to a steep ramp. The llamas would become airborne, and could then intercept and eat the inbound nuke.

Wouldn't work.

In all seriousness, what IS your fascination with trying to devise overly complicated technological solutions to problems which don't really exist? It seems an obsession with you . . . .

Is that a problem?

 

[Jadzia]

In all seriousness, what IS your fascination with trying to devise overly complicated technological solutions to problems which don't really exist? It seems an obsession with you . . . .

Is that a problem?

Tachyon asks a valid question here I think. Can we try to not let this one spiral into ridicule?

I don't know much about this subject, but I believe there are missile defense systems on standby capable of doing exactly this: to send a small missile in chase after a bigger missile and destroy it before it reaches its target. I'm not sure what else could be done as a counter measure.

 

[Brent]

Microwaves? I read or heard somewhere about using microwaves to destroy inbound missiles.

Other than that, what about point defense lasers?

 

[All Seeing Eye]

I saw a trailer for that G.I.Joe thing and on that trailer it shows a weapon that explodes and unleashes this green stuff that envelopes the target. The clip doesn't make it clear exactly what it is or does but I would imagine it is acidic in nature and eats away at the target.

Obviously we don't have anything like this now but does this type of weapon have potential? the nuke would not even need to be directly struck by the delivering missile, it would just explode and then release the acid like substance all over the nuke which would break it apart.

 

[chardman]

Tachyon asks a valid question here I think.

In light of his latest "G.I.Joe" post? Methinks you spoke too soon.

Can we try to not let this one spiral into ridicule?

In light of his latest "G.I.Joe" post? Surely you jest!

Let the fully deserved ridicule begin!

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Tachyon asks a valid question here I think.

In light of his latest "G.I.Joe" post? Methinks you spoke too soon.

Can we try to not let this one spiral into ridicule?

In light of his latest "G.I.Joe" post? Surely you jest!

Let the fully deserved ridicule begin!

So you freely admit you are here to troll? your post here combined with your TNZ post advertising this thread to everyone there shows you are.

Trolling is a warnable offence and a lot of people have been warned for far less offences than what you get away with in my Sci Tech threads.

I suggest you go take your ridicule back to TNZ.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I saw a trailer for that G.I.Joe thing and on that trailer it shows a weapon that explodes and unleashes this green stuff that envelopes the target. The clip doesn't make it clear exactly what it is or does but I would imagine it is acidic in nature and eats away at the target.

Obviously we don't have anything like this now but does this type of weapon have potential? the nuke would not even need to be directly struck by the delivering missile, it would just explode and then release the acid like substance all over the nuke which would break it apart.

Spoiler: GI JOE

The green stuff is the target. The missile contains nanobots designed to eat metal and are sent to destroy Washington DC. They shoot it down and destroy the nanobots in space. Because they can't survive there for some reason.

Also if you did spray acid on a nuke, you'd have to worry about all that nuclear material falling out of the sky. Not something you want landing in your backyard.

 

[Jadzia]

Tachyon asks a valid question here I think.

In light of his latest "G.I.Joe" post? Methinks you spoke too soon.

Can we try to not let this one spiral into ridicule?

In light of his latest "G.I.Joe" post? Surely you jest!

Let the fully deserved ridicule begin!

The fictional nature of the film doesn't invalidate the basic concept of the weapon. No ridicule is warranted, so keep it out of this thread.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Also if you did spray acid on a nuke, you'd have to worry about all that nuclear material falling out of the sky. Not something you want landing in your backyard.

Indeed but what would be more welcome, some nuclear material falling from the sky possibly landing in the ocean or a nuclear explosion capable of wiping out a city?

How high do ICBMs rise to? A quick google search doesn't appear to give me an answer.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Wouldn't work.

Prove it.

 

[sojourner]

Hey Tachyon, try googling SDI. Reagan's "Star Wars" defense had all kinds of kooky ideas that did not pan out.

Intercepting ICBM's is very hard to do. Trying to hit the warheads in coast phase is harder still. Your best bet is with a beam weapon. Viable beam weapons are just now coming into the realm of reality and out of the lab.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Also if you did spray acid on a nuke, you'd have to worry about all that nuclear material falling out of the sky. Not something you want landing in your backyard.

Indeed but what would be more welcome, some nuclear material falling from the sky possibly landing in the ocean or a nuclear explosion capable of wiping out a city?

How high do ICBMs rise to? A quick google search doesn't appear to give me an answer.

A quick death vs. a slow death from cancer. I know which one I want.

 

[chardman]

Ya know, you're right. If I am to remain, it's important that I give your ideas serious consideration, and contribute to the thread at the level of discourse that you've established with your own posts.

So...

I once saw a Japanese monster movie, where the hero robot programmed itself to "get big", and suddenly grew from man-sized to Godzilla-sized. The now giant hero robot then saved Tokyo from a missile attack, simply by snatching the missiles out of the sky with its hands.

Now, even though programing doesn't work that way...yet, and giant, Godzilla-sized robots do not exist...yet, what do you think the chances are of using some variation of this idea in the near future to achieve the sort of Nuclear Defence that our esteemed OP desires?

What changes to this giant robot scenario could be made that would make the idea more practical? (A giant Robot-sized catcher's mitt perhaps?)

How much do you think it would cost?

What color should it be?

Should it be able to transform into a cruise ship sized submarine, or maintain a fixed robotic state?

 

[All Seeing Eye]

A quick death vs. a slow death from cancer. I know which one I want.

What kind of area are we talking about though in regards to the radioactive material hitting the ground, there's also plenty of ocean for the material to land in. The landing of nuclear material would cause problems and no doubt health effects on those it would land on but weigh that against a city wide nuclear shock wave taking out a city which would undoubtedly cause larger much more widespread nuclear radiation and the best option is clear. The radiation from nuclear detonations would also cause cancer for the survivors in the aftermath aswell.

If nukes are being fired by Russia for example clearly a war is at hand and many nukes are pouring in would mean certain death for America.

So weigh full nuclear detonations against nuclear material falling from the sky which might (depending on where it's hit) land in the sea, near the Arctic or on un-populated land and the choice is obvious.

I would choose to eliminate an inbound nuke with an acid based weapon rather than allow the nuke to hit a populated city.

Anyway, the question is do we have any kind of acid or compound at this time that would be effective in eliminating a nuke or missile if it was successfully hit with it?