Nuclear War Q

[tcdaniel]

Even if NK does launch a nuke,
1: how likely would it be shot down in midflight and is that advisable?
2: If it wasn't shot down, how long is the flight- rather how much prep time would we have cover our butts?

[Zagadka]

1. Depends. Since NK doesn't have a rocket with the range to hit the US, and probably won't for some time, it isn't much of an issue - but assuming they did, we aren't currently set up to shoot down incoming nukes (the AA batteries along California have been dormant for a decade). The best bet we'd have is scrambling jets after it from Pacific bases - if it is just ONE ICBM, the chances aren't too bad. The problem arises when there are 3000. Shooting them down would be safe. ICBMs generally don't arm themselves until they approach the target. Always time for a kill code.

2. Again, depends on the launch vehicle, and how fast we detect it and, more importantly, verify it, and how long it takes for them to react and get out a public warning (the military would be scrambled before it is verified), would probably leave you personally with about 15 minutes to kiss your ass goodbye. ICBMs would clock about 30 minutes flight between targets in the late Cold War.

[Zagadka]

Oh, yea. Cite on the times:

http://www.fas.org/rlg/990317-nmd.htm

"Effectiveness of Proposed National Missile Defense Against ICBMs from North Korea"

By http://www.fas.org/rlg/

[Duckster]

You are assuming that North Korea launches a nuclear ICBM at the CONUS.

It can achieve almost the same thing by launching a nuclear-tipped missile at Japan.

1) The time/distance means there is no way to adequately detect and stop it. It's going to hit and case considerable physical damage in Japan.

2) The economic fallout will affect the planet, even though Japan will be the physical recipient. You can expect widespread and considerable economic problems wordwide, meaning the major economic powers will be severely affected. So will the residual consumer confidence.

3) The political fallout will affect the planet, even though Japan will be the physical recipient. You can expect considerable political problems wordwide, meaning the major political powers will be affected. In the USA alone, don't expect a meek response.

Yes, you did not ask for the last two thoughts. But both need to be considered in any response because of the interdependencies.

The FAS web site as provided by Zagadka is an excellent resource to study. It is worth far more than just a cursory read.

[Spiny Norman]

Originally posted by Zagadka
1. The best bet we'd have is scrambling jets after it from Pacific bases - if it is just ONE ICBM, the chances aren't too bad.

Colour me confused (purple, apparently) - what weapons would fighter jets use to intercept an ICBM or RV ? IIRC, an ICBM will be moving outside the atmosphere for most of its flight time, and the RV will arrive at mach 15-20.

[TBone2]

Originally posted by Spiny Norman
Colour me confused (purple, apparently) - what weapons would fighter jets use to intercept an ICBM or RV ? IIRC, an ICBM will be moving outside the atmosphere for most of its flight time, and the RV will arrive at mach 15-20.

It is my understanding that the Phoenix missiles carried on U.S. fighters (F-14 and F-15 primarily) are capable of intercepting and destroying an ICBM in its boost phase -- when it's accelerating upward through the atmosphere with a Mach number in the 2-4 range. Of course, such an interception would require that the jet be in exactly the right place at the right time....

On the up side, I go to sleep at night knowing that the first nuclear-tipped missile that North Korea launches -- against anyone -- will be the last. I do believe I'd pay to have a seat on the space shuttle just to see how brightly an Asian peninsula can glow in the dark......

[SenorBeef]

Originally posted by Spiny Norman
Colour me confused (purple, apparently) - what weapons would fighter jets use to intercept an ICBM or RV ? IIRC, an ICBM will be moving outside the atmosphere for most of its flight time, and the RV will arrive at mach 15-20.

Excellent question. I was in a big argument with an idiot once who was incapable of understanding that you can't just shoot something down becase you're in the same general area.

Anyway, the answer is that fighter jets are more or less useless. Their tracking systems are incapable of tracking ICBMs, and our weapons aren't designed to destroy them. Even if we could track it enough to shoot air-air missiles at it, at best, they'd explode a few hundred yards behind the ICBM, the shrapnel going too slow to catch up with the ICBM.

[Zagadka]

Oh, the Air Force has been playing around with this very question for DECADES. They've made *public* tests of laser-equipped aircraft capable of intercepting ICBMs (in theory, though I doubt they have any prepared to actually use since the Cold War ended) - but I'll be damned if they don't have something up their sleeves, considering how much time and money they've thrown at the problem. It isn't like a missile from NK is much different than a missile from Siberia.

The obvious point is that ICBMs do not cruise at any altitude, since they use ballistic trajectory. Basically, hitting them on the way up is about impossible unless you are waiting for it, and pretty much impossible on the way down, due to their speeds. That is the b*tch of ICBMs, and it leads to the logical conclusion that the only spot to take them out is with a space-based platform (AKA, Star Wars, in all its controversy).

I *was* very vague in scrambling aircraft at it and all, but there was a reason for that (in addition to that I never meant fighter jets, which have a tiny range and ARE useless, and I think the Patriot missiles were example enough of how useless missile defense can be). They WOULD scramble everything they could, and I doubt the old Cold War conditional manuals have gathered too much dust. In other words, the same systems that were in place to take out xx% of incoming warheads could likely handle ONE incoming warhead, the primary problem being no one ready to use them. But, like I said, no one is ready to use them because no other country has gained the technology for the advanced ICBMs since the collapse of the Soviet union, though China is getting close - there is no indication that NK has the ability to fire on the US. AFAIK, we rate the nuclear capabilities of other countries based on their range and yield.

There are simply too many theoreticals in this question - firstly, North Korea having the technology to launch a ICBM, secondly, how aware would we be of that capability (and secondly and a half, how prepared were we for the launch - eg, DefCon level), etc. *IF* North Korea had the capability to fire a ICBM 6000-7000 miles in 30 minutes, we would be on alert, and *IF* the political atmosphere warranted such a stupid and horrendous action, we would be on a military alert prepared to intercept any ICBM as it launched (not to mention turn Korea into glass before the missile was halfway to us).

Remember that one of the most important developments in the Cold War was the development of delivery platforms - long range bombers -> high speed long range bombers/interceptors -> ICBMs -> MIRV -> nuclear submaries carrying nuclear-armed cruise missiles/MRBMs. Korea doesn't have ANY of those components, and the United States is talking about friggin' lasers in space. It isn't even MAD... it is KAD. As TBone2 mentioned, Korea would be wiped off the map within minutes, whereas it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to take out EVERY Soviet facility.

And don't think that China is enjoying being pinned between India and Pakistan with their fingers on their buttons, Korea thumbing its nose at the US with nuclear weapons, Japan being a US airbase, Russia stumbling in the dark, and the US merrily overthrowing neighboring governments. As the Cold War demonstrated, even physical weapons can be a tool of the politicians more than the soldiers.

As for firing on Japan, that may cause the desired geopolitical effect... but considering the proximity of North Korea to Japan, I doubt the scenario is likely.

[SenorBeef]

The only stuff that I can think of that has come out of all this R&D is stuff designed to destroy things in their boost phase, which is inherently pretty limited.

Do we still have NIKE missile batteries in Alaska and on the west coast? Are those any good against ICMBs? I doubt it, but I can't recall offhand if they were ever adapted to that role.

[Phlosphr]

<slight hijack>Regarding the FAS Web site...

So does the Gov't already have the Missile defense system set up? Why do we always hear them bitching about money for the MDS, if they already have it in place?

[Kilt-wearin' man]

Originally posted by TBone2
It is my understanding that the Phoenix missiles carried on U.S. fighters (F-14 and F-15 primarily) are capable of intercepting and destroying an ICBM in its boost phase -- when it's accelerating upward through the atmosphere with a Mach number in the 2-4 range. Of course, such an interception would require that the jet be in exactly the right place at the right time....

No Phoenix missiles on the F-15 Eagle - it doesn't have the right radar system, and the missile is intended for fleet air defense anyway - intercepting Soviet bombers before they get in range of American carrier battle groups. Definitely not an Air Force mission, and the Eagle is an Air Force fighter. The F-14 Tomcat is the only aircraft in the world that carries the AIM-54 Phoenix. When the Tomcat is phased out in the next few years, the Phoenix goes with it.

[msmith537]

I think people may be confusing ICBMs with cruise missles like the Tomahawk. Cruise missiles can be shot down by aircraft SAMs and AAA because they generally fly low and at aircraft speeds. It's not easy though. They are fast and small.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally posted by Zagadka
1. Depends. Since NK doesn't have a rocket with the range to hit the US, and probably won't for some time, it isn't much of an issue

Sadly it is an issue. North Korea is closer to getting a missile that could reach the US than you might think (on the radio I heard at least the western portion of the US is close).

Cites:

The report raised several concerns that have had a significant impact on US policy. It asserted that these emerging missile states could develop long-range missiles more quickly than had commonly been assumed. In particular, the report concluded that North Korea and Iran could acquire the capability to attack the United States with long-range ballistic missiles within five years of a decision to do so, and that Iraq could
acquire such a capability within ten years (anticipating the end of UNSCOM inspections in Iraq in late 1998, the commission subsequently changed its estimate to five years for Iraq).

SOURCE: AN ASSESSMENT OF BALLISTIC MISSILE THREATS (January 2001...Page 6) (PDF File)

North Korea, which says it might resume missile tests, could be ready to test a two-stage rocket capable of reaching Alaska or Hawaii with a nuclear weapon-sized payload, according to U.S. defense analysts.

SOURCE: N. Korea missile might be capable of reaching (U.S. Associated Press Jan. 14, 2003 06:50 AM)

Originally posted by Zagadka
...I think the Patriot missiles were example enough of how useless missile defense can be.

In fairness the Patriot missile was not designed to be an antimissile system. I was practically useless against SCUD missiles and would be 100% useless against an ICBM. That's ok though because it isn't what you'd use anyway. For SCUDS we now have the Arrow Missile which presumably will be a lot more effective...still not a system that I think can tag incoming ICBMs however.

As mentioned an ICBM is a majorly difficult target. Its boost phase is its most vulnerable but it is in that phase for such a short time you pretty much need to be on the spot with something that can shoot it down (ala the Phoenix missile). Once in space you'd beeter hope a satellite with the capability to shoot it down is in the neighborhood. AFAIK no such thing actually exists yet. Once the ICBM is in its terminal phase your close to SOL.

As for worrying about shooting it down don't. If you CAN hit an ICBM with anything you should feel free to do so. You may stop the nuke entirely (which hitting it during about 95% of its trip would do) but worst case is you knock it off target and it still goes off which is still better. Instead of vaporizing a hunk of Chicago you vaporize Peoria instead. Not good for the people in Peoria I'll admit and there's still fallout and such but from a cold calculation standpoint the numbers work better that way.

[CC]

Originally posted by Zagadka
1. (the AA batteries along California have been dormant for a decade).

You mean our entire west coast defense rests on old expired RayOVac's? Jeez, I guess we ought to raise the Pentagon's budget after all.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole
I was practically useless against SCUD missiles and would be 100% useless against an ICBM.

I crack me up sometimes. While it is 100% true that I personally am 100% useless against ANY missile that "I" in the quote above should have been "It".

Hopefully I'll get this posted before some other close reading Doper has fun at my expense !

[Rucksinator]

Originally posted by Zagadka
...and I think the Patriot missiles were example enough of how useless missile defense can be).

What? I thought that the Patriot missiles proved to be very usefull (at least against SCUDs) during the Gulf War?
[Anecdotal evidence]
At least that was my brother's opinion. When he was in the Gulf war, after the first night of being shot at with Scuds, he and his buddies would stand on top of their building watching the Patriots shoot down the Scuds like a giant fireworks show. [/Anecdotal Evidence]

[Sofa King]

The real danger is to one of the United States' closest allies, Japan. Japan relies upon the U.S. for certain aspects of its forward defense, and because of our treaty agreements, an attack on Japan would be tantamount to an attack on the United States. (It really would be an attack on the U.S., economically speaking.)

North Korea made it clear that they can already nail Japan when they test fired a missile over Japanese territory in 1998.

The Americans responded rather quickly, all things considered. Last year an Aegis cruiser sucsessfully intercepted an ascending missile in a fairly realistic test. The chosen test scenario appears to me to be directed precisely at a North Korean missile launch toward Japan, with an Aegis cruiser conveniently parked somewhere in the Sea of Japan. The system is intended to be perfected for use against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles by 2005.

[CC]

I have no cite for this, although I'm certain there are many - including a recent Frontline broadcast - but it turns out that the Patriots were almost useless against the Scuds. The main success came in PR. Witness the last post.

[Zagadka]

Originally posted by CC
I have no cite for this, although I'm certain there are many - including a recent Frontline broadcast - but it turns out that the Patriots were almost useless against the Scuds. The main success came in PR. Witness the last post.

That's basically it. They trumped up the Patriots a lot, largely to reassure Israel... I don't have cites either, but I had heard they only had one *confirmed* interception.

Mentioning that, Sofa King, hitting Japan may be harder than hitting the US with a Aegis cruise or two sitting there...

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally posted by Rucksinator
What? I thought that the Patriot missiles proved to be very usefull (at least against SCUDs) during the Gulf War?

I also got my info from a recent Frontline episode on the Gulf War.

During the war the US claimed that all but one Patriot fired at a SCUD successfully intercepted it (60+ or so). Later the US revised its success down and then down again and I think finally settled on something like a 25-30% success rate.

An Israeli fellow who inspected the wreckage of SCUDS felt that not a single SCUD had been successfully intercepted...certainly no more than one or two had any effect in his opinion.

The pictures of SCUDS falling apart was not due to the Patriot getting an intercept. The SCUD just falls apart on its own due to the stress caused by its final plunge to the ground. Given that there were now pieces of SCUD up there the Patriot would more than likely engage wrekage that already fell off the missile than the business part of the missile.

Again remember that the Patriot was built to engage planes...not missiles. It was thrown in there as a desperate measure to appease the Israeli public that something was being done to defend them but mostly it was all smoke and mirrors.

See my link earlier in this thread to get the low down on the Arrow missile which is meant to engage missiles like the SCUD (and the Arrow has been deployed in fair numbers to Israel already).

[DreadCthulhu]

The airforce is working on a method to shoot down the missles in the boost phase http://www.airbornelaser.com/ which is basically a 747 equiped with a powerful laser and aiming systems. But you still have to have one of these in the area to prevent a missle take off.

[smithsb]

[quote]Originally posted by Zagadka
[b]That's basically it. They trumped up the Patriots a lot, largely to reassure Israel... I don't have cites either, but I had heard they only had one *confirmed* interception.

The version of Patriot missiles used in Desert Storm was aircraft intercept optimized. It's use against Scuds was last ditch with approximately a 25% or less success rate of warhead destruction. Actually getting to where the Scud was about a 100% success but killing it was not easy. The Patriot might have an actual intercept - destroy the Scud structure but not detonate the Scud warhead. Main problems were:
Fuze action was too slow - Warhead/missile inbound was coming much faster than an aircraft. Fuze woul function in proximity but would have already passed the Scud which was moving faster than the rate of detonation of the Patriot warhead. Aft end of the Scud might get blown up but warhead would still be intact though unguided. Later version of fuzing is "quicker" anticipating the intercept. Same with intercept software.
Patriot warhead fragments were too small (limited penetration) to kill the warhead. Aircraft are very thin skinned and engines vulnerable to even small fragments. A Scud warhead would be relatively robust and there would be a heat shield for re-entry. Sufficient "armor" to stop Patriot fragments. Later version of Patriot warhead has different fragmentation to go with the quicker fuze. Latest Patriot has hit-to-kill ability.
Scuds broke up into multiple targets due to re-entry forces acting on the missile airframe presenting a confusing radar image. Some Scuds were modified for longer range with no real testing on the resulting missile. And these are not very high quality to begin with. The Patriot radar was excellent at "seeing" the target(s) but distinguishing a falling warhead from a broken up fuel tank was not part of the computer program. Software has been improved to make distinctions although this does reduce intercept altitude - you have to have some aerodynamic (atmospheric) forces on the targets to distinguish them.