North Korean Taepodong missiles travel at about 7km/s. Do we have anything that could intercept and in one form or another destroy/throw off target/disarm an ICBM that has already been launched?
Isn’t that what “Star Wars” (Reagan’s plan, not the movies) was all about. You may a little young but Reagan proposed this hugely complex and expensive system that could shoot down (Russian) ICBM’s. That was more important back in the Cold War days than we think it is now. Star Wars as a whole didn’t make it but parts of it survived. There have been some fairly recent and very choreographed tests that tested our current missile shooting down technology. There was some success and other terrible failures but I am certain that none of those technologies are in use for real-time protection.
A half-baked kinetic-kill system based in Alaska and California that has failed most of the (highly staged) tests it has undergone.
Thats about it.
Missile defense systems don’t have to be able to catch the missile in speed - just explode within its vicinity. This document indicates that there were various ideas of blowing/rendering useless up a 7km/s ICBM as early as the 80s, but as of today we have nothing in place that can reliably do the job (although we will certainly detect it).
This is a good document on the subject as well.
Our only operative defense against an ICBM is MAD. They can be tracked, and we will turn the launching country into a parking lot. A softly glowing parking lot. Not a lot of help to those targeted by the rogue, but it worked for 50 years.
I should state that the kinetic-kill vehicle system has been deployed AFAIK, and is theoreticlly operating now, protecting us from…
having too much money, I guess.
Umm…what about the HOE (Homing Overlay Experiment) back around 1985 between Vanderberg and Meck island (Kwajalein atoll)?
One option would see a US ship-launched tactical missile intercepting an NK ICBM during the critical boost phase–just after liftoff, when the ICBM is slowest and most vulnerable. Theoretically, it could be done at a fraction of the cost of a space-based system, but the program is still in its infancy.
The Airborne Laser (ABL) is another boost-phase system, featuring a laser mounted in the nose of a 747. Still early in the test phase.
THAAD (Theater High-Altitude Area Defense) is another proposed intercept missile, but has been technically troubled from day one. Much more complicated mission.
U.S. gives up on upgrading missile defense
No one from the administration has actually said “unworkable boodoggle” yet, but no one really expects them to ever say that.
Was that the one with a transponder in the target so the interceptor could actually find it?
IIRC, that is what the Nike-Zeus, or the whole Nike series, was for in the early 60s. The whole ABM system of the 60s was scrapped by the SALT agreements of the 70s(?). I don’t know if they were workable or not, but I think that the last ones to go were around DC.
To the best of my knowledge, no. (this was the first one)
Subsequent intercepts, however, are tainted by that possibility. But this was after we’d left the island, so I just do not know about this. I do recall some controversy about one of these, so you may very well be correct.
Testing is very expensive. Just about everything in the test world is highly staged. This doesn’t mean that it was faked, nor does it mean that the test results are useless. Forgetting about the test vehicle, the cost of launching the target missile is easily in the seven figure range. You don’t want to blow that kind of money and not get any results, so you stage things to get the data you want.
The bottom line is that even when they were cheating, (placing transponders in the target missle) they couldn’t get the results they wanted. IIRC, more than once, the interceptor missle didn’t even launch.
What do you mean by ‘placing transponders in the target missile’? Because every target missile has a transponder in it. What do you mean by ‘cheating’?
If the interceptor missile didn’t launch, that doesn’t mean that the test didn’t provide useful data. Do you understand the concept of testing?
The Nikes were originally developed as anti-aircraft missiles, and I’m not sure much beyond ink and paper went into making sure they could actually intercept ballistic missiles or their warheads. I don’t know if they underwent any testing to see if they could perform that mission, and I’m a little skeptical that the 1950s guidance technology would be useful against a ballistic warhead.
Weren’t they (Nikes) nuclear tipped?
Some were. 20 or 40 kT warheads. A problem wasn’t the warheads; it’s that a system set up to intercept aircraft at altitudes lower than 50,000 ft and up to 100 miles away is not well set up to intercept warheads incoming an order of magnitude faster and from almost directly overhead.
Essentially, a homing beacon was placed in the target misssle and the interceptor missle still couldn’t hit it. Why would enemies place a transponder in their missles?
Of course I understand the concept of testing, but in test where the interceptor was supposed to launch and didn’t have to be considered failures, don’t they?