NMD, anti-icmb defense, possible?

[Xcalibur]

Watched a program about the US national missile defense, and i must say that i was chocked. I didn't knew that it was since the 60's, since Eisenhower that this program was lauched.

Still, some scientists on the program said it was impossible, cause of false ICMB that could be launched..
Any thought about it? I must say that i would prefer a solid defense to a DUCK AND COVER plan

now where's my bunker..

[Edited on 7-5-2003 by Xcalibur]

[Black Jesus]

it is not possible (anytime soon) to hope to stop an all out nuclear attack from a country like russia, but keep in mind, 2 or 3 years ago President Bush declared this limited missile defense shield to protect against rogue countries such as North Korea. Now I call that pretty good goddamn vision. I have faith that our scientists and engineers will ultimately prove successful.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Still, some scientists on the program said it was impossible, cause of false ICMB that could be launched.. >>

This only scratches the surface. Apart from just sending a mass of fake ICBMs to trick the system, you can always add anti-radar technology and anti-infrared technology to the actual ICBM itself. It's an interesting project nonetheless, but it won't ever prove to be a practical means of defense.

By the time this system does become fully functional, I'd expect that far more advanced/cheap weapons such as EMP are available.

[edge]

I like EMP. I am surprised we don't hear about that more.

[imported_Kranar]

<< I like EMP. I am surprised we don't hear about that more. >>

There have been several EMP blasts, but there is yet to be an E-bomb. Anyways, let's hope such a bomb never gets built, because a REAL EMP (not the one you see in The Matrix), would be far worse than even a nuclear attack.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Kranar
There have been several EMP blasts, but there is yet to be an E-bomb. Anyways, let's hope such a bomb never gets built, because a REAL EMP (not the one you see in The Matrix), would be far worse than even a nuclear attack.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I always assumed that a EMP was only destructive to things applied to computers. I didn't think it was dangerous to humans, which is quite different then a nuke..... Maybe I've seen to many movies, I don't know..... just wondering.

<<It's also July 4th so anything that makes no sense, just ignore....>>

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Gemstone101

Originally posted by Kranar
There have been several EMP blasts, but there is yet to be an E-bomb. Anyways, let's hope such a bomb never gets built, because a REAL EMP (not the one you see in The Matrix), would be far worse than even a nuclear attack.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I always assumed that a EMP was only destructive to things applied to computers. I didn't think it was dangerous to humans, which is quite different then a nuke..... Maybe I've seen to many movies, I don't know..... just wondering.

<<It's also July 4th so anything that makes no sense, just ignore....>>

EMPs detonated high enough in the atmosphere have the potential to affect a radius in the hundreds or possibly even thousand or more miles. The havok that would wreak on our modern society with its dependence on computers and other machines is horrible to even contemplate.

It is possible to shield systems from the effects of an EMP but the costs of such shielding makes it counterproductive for anything more than the rare military hardened target thus leaving pretty much all of the US economy completely vulnerable.

It was long assumed that airbursting nuclear weapons used solely for the EMP value was a certainty if the USSR did ever attack.

[Edited on 7-5-2003 by Skirmisher]

[imported_Kranar]

<< Forgive me for my ignorance, but I always assumed that a EMP was only destructive to things applied to computers. >>

EMP short circuits all electronic devices that are running. They permanently damage them. They do not "explode" infact they're invisible and if you were out in a forrest or living with some Amish folks, you wouldn't even know an E-Bomb went off.

The reason they're so powerful though, is that to generate an EMP, you make use of the earth's atmosphere. I could go into a detailed explanation on how the first EMPs were generated, but the bottom line is that you generate the EMP 50 kilometers above the surface of the earth, and it will fry all electronic devices in that country.

I know it may seem hard to believe, but it has been done in the past. The first EMP was a result of an atmospheric nuclear test detonated far out in the Pacific Ocean. That one test ended up short circuiting electrical equipment from Hawaii to Australia.

Imagine a powerless U.S. No hospitals, no cars, no radios, no T.Vs, simply no electricity. It would be devastating. The thing I never liked about how EMPs are shown in movies or in video games (Star Craft anyone?) is that EMPs aren't like some temporary disturbance where equipment goes offline for like an hour and then comes back on. The EMP fries the circuit, so unless you have a repairman available to help out and fix every single piece of equipment that has been fried, you're screwed.

[Scott]

Right I know that. Blowing up a nuke high up in the atmosphere would send an EMP over the whole US. However, I'd much rather all civilian equipment blow up (or whatever it does) then someone dropping a nuke on 3 mile island........ or on a city.

[imported_Kranar]

You don't think the civilian casualties would be comparable? The riots that would ensue? The total chaos that would arise from being in total darkness?

Prisoners escaping from jail, people dying at hospitals because there's no electricity. Cars just sitting on the road, people losing their jobs.

It would be total chaos on a national level. I know a nuke at first glance would seem more destructive, because it's an in your face explosion, but think of the insanity that would arise from having NO power. Think of the blackouts in New York that only lasted 1 night... now imagine that occuring throughout an entire nation, for atleast 2-3 weeks, if not months.

[Makkah]

I tend to hold life in higher regard than electronics.


rht

[Warriorbird]

The casualties would be pretty intense though, Rhett.

[Bestatte]

Not to mention the problems resulting from people with electronic heart implants. Or anyone wearing one of those nifty magnet bracelets that supposedly treat arthritis.

Electricity is the manipulation of magnetic waves. Friction between positive and negative. ANY magnetic device would be at risk. Heck I'm guessing your watch would probably stop too. Forever.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Makkah
I tend to hold life in higher regard than electronics.


rht

Nice soundbite, but the problem is that so many lives depend on electronics.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
Right I know that. Blowing up a nuke high up in the atmosphere would send an EMP over the whole US. However, I'd much rather all civilian equipment blow up (or whatever it does) then someone dropping a nuke on 3 mile island........ or on a city.

What Kranar said about the blackout is an excellent analogy. Anyone who has experienced a blackout in a major city such as NY, especially police officers could attest as to the chaos, injuries and deaths that will follow. Now imagine that blackout where not even autos work, where not even battery operated devices work, and where the expected time of repair is not hours or days but weeks or more likely months.

The riots that would inevitably follow and fires would be near impossible to contain without modern emergency response machinery and those injured that actually made it to a hospital would find it equally crippled in its ability to render aid.

Once you really start to think about it and follow the progression in your head it quickly becomes apparent what a nightmare a large scale EMP would be.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Heck I'm guessing your watch would probably stop too. >>

It certainly would.

We take electricity for granted.

Just think about it... I could see hundreds of thousands of deaths occuring from the riots, from people escaping prison, from the lack of electricity to help those who are dying or need artificial hearts, lack of government control.

Do this... think about how many lives are SAVED everyday because of electricity. Those lives would be lost under an EMP attack.

Like I said, it seems weird to think that no electricity would be more devestating than a nuclear weapon, but when you really think about it, it makes sense.

[Edited on 7-5-2003 by Kranar]

[longshot]

Okay... I have a job that leaves me with large amounts of downtime. If you read news on yahoo, they have links on the sides of the pages to related articles. I read this independent research assessment of NMD.

There are three times you can get the missle... none of them are good.

The first, is to blast the missle in its initial liftoff phase. The thing is... descruction of the missle will not necessarily detonate the warhead. It has a high chance of coming down and detonating on impact. And if the intercept does cause the warhead to detonate, it is still in the earths atmosphere, and will kill a lot of people.

This means a missle fired by North Korea if intercepted before it reaches the atmosphere... could kill a ton of people in China. This is not going to please Chinese people.

The US nukes are eqquiped with safety devices that prevent the warhead from detonating if it hasn't been through space for awhile. The study determined that a "rogue nation" would not use this, for fear of the safety not working and preventing detonation all together.

Now, you can also try to get the missle on the way down... but, again, it's coming down. It will hit something. It is more likely that an intercept when the missle is screaming back into the atmosphere will only alter the path.

The problem with a space intercept is that under the extreme temperatures that the missle travels, the fuel tanks of an ICBM can be punctured, but the missle will not explode. It will still come down... just not where it is supposed to.

Also, relatively cheap measures can then be taken to reinforce the fuel tanks of ICBMs, rendering billions of dollars in "fancy lasers" useless.

This was just what this one study said.

[Makkah]

<<Just think about it... I could see hundreds of thousands of deaths occuring from...>>

This compared to the countless millions killed by an initial ground nuclear blast... followed by countless more millions killed by the radioactive fallout... followed by riots, etc. caused by the power getting cut off because power plants and dams are destroyed by the before-mentioned.


rht

[Black Jesus]

Actually I'd say that a Nuclear bomb is much worse. On top the death and destruction it also causes an EMP. So what if a city or two lose all electronics. You think they are going to be totally cut off? No, equipment will be sent in immediately to replace the stuff that was destroyed. Sure it would be terrible, not that bad. EMPs are best to temporarily take stuff offline.

[imported_Kranar]

<< So what if a city or two lose all electronics. >>

An EMP fries the electricity of an entire country. Not a city. It is not a temporary shutdown, it doesn't turn off an electronic device, it fries it.

Also, a ground nuke doesn't set off an EMP, only high atmospheric nukes do, but those nukes wouldn't touch the city. If a nuke is detonated 50 kilometers above the surface of the earth, you have a shot at an EMP. However, at 50 kilometers away from it won't have any effect on the ground whatsoever, so it's pointless to use a nuke to set off an EMP.

[Slider]

Actually, there is a fourth method of defense, and it was actually the first one that was proposed by the original "think tank" that also came up with the idea of a satelite based laser defense system.
Basically, it borrows a page from Heinlein's book The Moon is a Harsh Mistress... you throw rocks... The idea was that you attach a system to every satelite that the U.S. launched that contained a number of tungsten steel rods, a telescopic "sight", and a compressed gas system to launch the rod. As soon as the launch silo for an ICBM was opened you simply dropped the rod on it...from low earth orbit. the kinetic energy generated would be more than sufficient to completely destroy the silo and pretty much everything else around it. The system was actually tested out by the Air Force, and they found that they could place the rod with an accuracy of about 3-5 meters of the target point, with no guidance at all. If the U.S. had adopted the system, within 5 years we would have been able to hit any location on the globe every 30 seconds with a full payload of thse things. Unfortunatly, Congress, in it's infinate wisdom, went with the Star Wars aproach, because it would "enhance research into new technical fields" ...and because the companies developing said technology have gotten billions in research funds from the gov't...for what? 30 years and counting know? Or is that just me being cynical?

[Red Devil]

I killed the neighbors stereo and speakers with my microwave, he shouldnt have played it so loud