[MB.]

The US is a spacepower, and it seems fitting to title it that.

I do think he should be held responsible. He almost cost another tremendous defeat, possibly war changing, by ignoring the intelligence. That's his ball.

Damning assertions...

[Figlio di Moros]

How about "The US is a power, on all fronts." Sea-Air-Land-Space power... Space-SEALpower... could use some work.

[MB.]

It is a spacepower in the sense that the country would collapse and be conquered without ICBM rockets and CIA spy satellites, etc.

[Figlio di Moros]

I don't think we're any more reliant on space power than other nations...

[MB.]

Without the ability to control access to near earth orbit the United States would most likely lose the war in the first hour of ICBM exchange.

[Igor Antunov]

At present there is no ICBM shield in existence. For every one you shoot down 10 will get throught. Once your country is carpet bombed by 500+ 200 kiloton MIRV's it doesn't matter what you've done to the other guy, you've lost. Canada will move in to feed what's left of your people and Mexico may send troops to build shelter.

[Zerogouki]

How it become so powerful and strong?

We Americans are compensating for our small dicks.

[MB.]

At present there is no ICBM shield in existence. For every one you shoot down 10 will get throught. Once your country is carpet bombed by 500+ 200 kiloton MIRV's it doesn't matter what you've done to the other guy, you've lost. Canada will move in to feed what's left of your people and Mexico may send troops to build shelter.

It is exactly this kind of hollow rhetoric which causes so much wasted energy at the funding level. In the post-attack-environment prices will rise and be scaled relative exposure of crop to radioactive isotope. With regard to MIRV penetration of ICBM shields, of course a powerful first-strike will cause limited-losses but this is the entire purpose of Type I Deterrence. Needless to say, loosing is relative term that is radically subjective to the political Gemeinschaft.

[Zagadka]

t present there is no ICBM shield in existence. For every one you shoot down 10 will get throught.

That's the general principal, yea.

ICBMs can (generally) only be shot down in their launch phase, when they are moving slowly and predictably. Once they peak, they'll be moving too fast to really be affected by much (gravity doing the rest), especially if they are MIRV.

The *real* threat that everyone seems to ignore is S(ea) Launched missiles. The ICBMs flying aside, the real damage to America in the Cold War scenario would have been from Soviet SLBMs; they're just too fast and going over too short a range to be intercepted. Almost every major US population center is within range of a coast. We had a similar, but lesser, threat to Russia, which is why we needed our MLBMs in Turkey.

Europe would have been pretty fucked in a full Cold War nuclear exchange...

It is exactly this kind of hollow rhetoric which causes so much wasted energy at the funding level.

I shudder to think, in 100 years, how much they will calculate the total waste of spending that went into the ICBM standoff. Probably the most massive endeavor ever undertaken.

And now it is pretty pointless. I do love the irony that America is so dominant that our forces are virtually worthless. The only logical way to confront the US is exactly what we're facing now; decentralized militia groups operating in numerous countries.

I think that the world is in a system now that large scale war is fairly infeasible. The international markets virtually assure that every major country has its infrastructure invested heavily in each other. America and China going to war is pretty laughable, since both countries rely so strongly on each other for trade. The threats we face are the more isolated countries, like North Korea (walled off from the world, even China) and Iran (largely undeveloped and culturally divided). Frankly, if it weren't for Israel's existence, there wouldn't be a lot of conflict, I think. I mean, you have India/Pakistan in a nuclear standoff, but in realistic terms, they're fucking next to each other. Iran can kinda threaten Israel and North Korea can kinda threaten Japan, but again, they're effectively next to each other. China and Taiwan/US have that theoretical fight, but... right next to each other.

And the irony of that all is that the US has to maintain our power projection via the Navy in order for this whole very system that makes it useless to work.

[Zerogouki]

ICBMs can (generally) only be shot down in their launch phase, when they are moving slowly and predictably. Once they peak, they'll be moving too fast to really be affected by much (gravity doing the rest), especially if they are MIRV.

If you're talking about shooting it down with a missile, then yes, you're right. But have you considered things like radar-guided 30×173mm autocannons?

[Typhoon]

But have you considered things like radar-guided 30×173mm autocannons?

The guns transverse too slowly, as do the 30 mm rounds which would not have the range or altitude to effectively engage a MIRV.

[MB.]

This trash talk between missiles and autocannons involves in the railgun thread where it gets owned. A few coastal installations of macro-railguns would effectively eliminate the sword of Damocles.

[Zagadka]

A few coastal installations of macro-railguns would effectively eliminate the sword of Damocles.

That's being a bit hypothetical.

Anyway, current (known) technology really can't hit an incoming (downward) missile... and even if it did, it would have to cause enough damage to disable the detonation trigger for the nuke (on the downward flight, it wouldn't be enough to just hit it, the trigger could take a hit from a shell and continue its downward trajectory and detonate as a skyburst easily). That is why the only effective way of interception is on launch, where it would just topple into the sea (and before the warhead arms).

That's also why the skyborn laser thing is kinda retarded. It would require a fleet of the planes flying around the airspace of places like North Korea, and then, not 100% successful.

[MB.]

It would require a fleet of the planes flying around the airspace of places like North Korea, and then, not 100% successful.

The airborne laser is basically a testbed for a megawatt scale laser. It's function is obviously to target ground targets, not destroy North Korean ICBMs

Anyway, current (known) technology really can't hit an incoming (downward) missile...

Missiles and MIRVs can be and I believe have been destroyed during the terminal phase.

[Zagadka]

The airborne laser is basically a testbed for a megawatt scale laser. It's function is obviously to target ground targets, not destroy North Korean ICBMs

Well, firstly, testing a megawatt scale laser to target ground targets can much more easily be done on a military research base than putting a giant power plant in a 747. It's clearly designed for air intercept.

Missiles and MIRVs can be and I believe have been destroyed during the terminal phase.

Not reliably. The only real-world use of it I've seen was the Patriot system, which failed a majority of the time... though there have been recent tests intercepting incoming RPGs that have gotten serious attention, so I'll grant it as a modern possibility.

What is the mechanism used to disable the nuclear trigger in an incoming ballistic missile? Some kind of pressure burst?

[MB.]

A nuclear device won't detonate unless very specific conditions are met, they are otherwise perfectly vulnerable to conventional destruction.

than putting a giant power plant in a 747. It's clearly designed for air intercept.

This was how the design was pushed through and lobbied for, but I assure you (and you seem perfectly aware of this) that it will never be used for the stated purpose.

Not reliably. The only real-world use of it I've seen was the Patriot system, which failed a majority of the time... though there have been recent tests intercepting incoming RPGs that have gotten serious attention, so I'll grant it as a modern possibility.

I don't have any links, but rather than a modern possibility what you are describing is a confirmed fact.

[Zagadka]

A nuclear device won't detonate unless very specific conditions are met, they are otherwise perfectly vulnerable to conventional destruction.

I know nukes are very sensitive (which always makes the fear about nuclear power plants very aggravating), but my impression was that old-school air burst ICBMs were fairly well protected from conventional hits... but then, they weren't designed for modern countermeasures, so I'll grant that.

This was how the design was pushed through and lobbied for, but I assure you (and you seem perfectly aware of this) that it will never be used for the stated purpose.

Definitely in agreement there. Not really realistic with current technology, but then, everything has its development phase. A mobile laser would make a fucking terrifying thing to fight. Things would just burst into flames.

I don't have any links, but rather than a modern possibility what you are describing is a confirmed fact.

We'll see what happens the next time someone fires a missile at the US. ;-)

[MB.]

I know nukes are very sensitive (which always makes the fear about nuclear power plants very aggravating), but my impression was that old-school air burst ICBMs were fairly well protected from conventional hits... but then, they weren't designed for modern countermeasures, so I'll grant that.

An ICBM is a large rocket and is very vulnerable. They are minimally shielded over the nose-cone, the location where the MIRVs and the guidance computer are stored. The fuel tanks are sheathed in an aviation material of some form, presumably either aluminium or some kind of steel composite, but I doubt these sheaths are particularly resilient either. Anyway, a powerful megawatt range laser would burn through the sheathing in a matter of seconds. A direct impact from a kinetic or thermal/explosive weapon would likewise be fatal.

A nuclear weapon is a highly sophisticated piece of kit, as you no doubt can well imagine, but in no way resembles a nuclear power reactor. A nuclear reactor orchestrates a controlled fission chain reaction, or a controlled ion fusion; whereas a thermonuclear device is a precisely timed two-stage machine, relying on a rampant fission reaction and thermal energy.

[Zagadka]

An ICBM is a large rocket and is very vulnerable

I'm talking warhead detached from the launch vehicle.

A nuclear weapon is a highly sophisticated piece of kit, as you no doubt can well imagine, but in no way resembles a nuclear power reactor.

I well know. I spent a great deal of time arguing down people protesting a shipment of spent nuclear fuel being shipped by train through town. They were afraid of explosions. I had a hard time believing they knew how to breath.

[Typhoon]

A few coastal installations of macro-railguns would effectively eliminate the sword of Damocles.

As I said to someone else once...countermeasures, if needs be you just detonate your warheads closer and closer to the target, the first blast masks the following warheads, or just detonate a few at high altitude. He who thinks they can block Damocles, think again .

Patriot is considered a terminal phase interceptor but it was only really designed to engage short range missiles, the only two systems that were capable of dealing with ICBM's were the Defender, Sentinel and Safeguard programs of the US and the Russian A-series, which still serves today, though for reasons noted above they were all flawed and inadequate defences.

[youtube]D2ws5oabKBc[/youtube]

It's function is obviously to target ground targets, not destroy North Korean ICBMs

There are two programs here, the now shelved Mw class Airborne Laser as reffered to by Zagadka and the 100 kW Advanced Tactical Laser noted above by MB.
Defences have already been developed to allow ballistic missiles to survive boost phase attack, the missile can use a Carbon rich ablative 'armour' to absord the beam for the few minutes it could be exposed, inducing a rotation during flight could also be done to increase resistance by preventing the laser from focussing on one spot. Warheads designed to resist the extremes of reentry would have a high resistance to lasers anyway.

What is the mechanism used to disable the nuclear trigger in an incoming ballistic missile?

Blast/kinetic effects and neutron radiation have been used traditionally, though since the conception of ABM the missile warheads have been designed to survive very nears misses from nuclear weapons, perhaps less than 500 meters. Nuclear warheads may also be salvage fused so if the flight of one is disrupted it may detonate anyway.

Intercepting RPG's and such has produced some very unusual systems, such as quick kill:
[youtube]rgWywHPVzMg[/youtube]