# Is There Any Defense Against The Chinese Ant-Ship Ballistic Missile? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 13, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082 "2013-01-13T18:57:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2013, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/81 "2013-01-15T22:02:04Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Sure, but it still doesn’t follow that because we have leased a Swedish sub, that we’re terrified or don’t know how to cope with diesel-electric/AIP subs, which is what **Magiver** is saying. > > Ultimately this is silly; when nuclear warheads come into the equation, whether by short range ballistic missile, torpedo, mine, bomb or cruise missile, whatever war we’re talking about becomes entirely different, and whether or not a particular carrier survives or not isn’t really much of a consideration anymore. > > Considering that the IOC missiles are conventionally armed, I don’t know that they really do pose that much of a threat to a carrier. I’m really not sure how many times I have to repeat myself. Carrier groups do not represent an extension of power against 1st world nations. They are used against 3rd world countries. Let me be plainer for those who don’t get it. It’s not China we’re worried about. It’s every other dick nation with modern diesel sub. China just pointed out the obvious to us. A modern diesel submarine can stay submerged for a significant period of time. That was the purpose of a nuclear Navy and that capacity has been introduced on a lesser scale with newer generation diesels. Let me be even plainer. The United States may have the best navy in the world but that is spread out over the entire planet because of our current “world’s policeman” policy. Countries that only wish to exert power along their own shores can build a credible threat to the assets in THAT area. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2013, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/82 "2013-01-15T22:12:07Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I’m really not sure how many times I have to repeat myself. Carrier groups do not represent an extension of power against 1st world nations. They are used against 3rd world countries. > > Let me be plainer for those who don’t get it. It’s not China we’re worried about. Well why did the US send two carriers during the Taiwan crisis of 1996? If actual fighting had broken out, would the carriers have “run away” like Sir Robin of Holy Grail fame? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/83 "2013-01-15T22:18:15Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Well why did the US send two carriers during the Taiwan crisis of 1996? If actual fighting had broken out, would the carriers have “run away” like Sir Robin of Holy Grail fame? What do you think the minimum consequences would be if one of our ships were attacked? Even if it was simply rammed by another ship running a blockade? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2013, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/84 "2013-01-15T22:26:29Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > What do you think the minimum consequences would be if one of our ships were attacked? Even if it was simply rammed by another ship running a blockade? I would say it depends on the circumstances. Are you saying that the only use of a carrier against China is serve as bait to provide a casus belli in case the carrier is attacked? If so, why not just save a few hundred million and just send a mock carrier filled with cute puppy dogs? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2013, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/85 "2013-01-15T22:35:14Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I would say it depends on the circumstances. Are you saying that the only use of a carrier against China is serve as bait to provide a casus belli in case the carrier is attacked? If so, why not just save a few hundred million and just send a mock carrier filled with cute puppy dogs? I’m just not sure we could pull off a ship filled with cute puppies given the resolution of satellites. But it would add new meaning to the phrase “dogs of war”. ---
**Author:** ![busterpickle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/258eb7/32.png) [@busterpickle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/busterpickle)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/86 "2013-01-16T00:11:30Z")
There is a date issue here with the renting of the Swedish sub and the Chinese subs: [ol] [li][The Diplomat article was in 2011](http://thediplomat.com/2011/10/20/china%E2%80%99s-overhyped-submarine-threat/)[/li][li][National Defense article in 2008](http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2008/April/Pages/AntiSub2301.aspx)[/li][li][Navy times also in 2008](http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/kyo_china_080115/).[/li][/ol] [The lease of Swedish Submarine HMS Gotland: 2005.](http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=18984) Whoops, it seems everyone got quite vexed and forgot to check some basic facts. That being all said, the fact that sub’s showed up outside of a naval exercise is of no surprise to me. You potentially have an entire group underway, a mix of engine types depending on the ships involved (steam, nuclear, gas turbine, diesel), nearby commercial craft, etc. Plus, the varying depths of the ocean and currents. So, that’s a lot of activity in the water that will raise the noise floor for any type of sonar detecting equipment. **What we need to look at here is the actual acoustical environment at the time of Chinese sub surfacing in order to determine if they have any technology of merit.** If they show up along side an exercise in a noisy environment it means nothing other than they have proven they will do something like that. They pull up along side a carrier while underway all by itself and no one knew, maybe that something, maybe they got lucky maybe they got a quiet submarine. Now, they pull up along side a FFG, which has sonar and they had no idea. That means the Chinese actually got themselves some advanced technology. Also, this talk of acoustical tiles and low-cavitation propellers as if it was just invented is absurd. It’s more like who _doesn’t_ have acoustical tiles and low-cavitation propellers, China? So, maybe for China it’s new stuff. But, not for the US and any of its first-world allies. This stuff has been around awhile and may have not been public knowledge for obvious reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/87 "2013-01-16T00:38:46Z")
> [@NitroPress](#): > > China has spysats like all the other technologically advanced nations. You seriously think that, in a situation where they’re going to try to take out one of our carrier groups, they don’t have the capability to pull near-realtime imaging, and do it well enough to estimate speed and direction of the group for a ~10 minute ballistic arc? > > It’s not likely to be some quick-draw situation; they could spend plenty of time lining up their shot. The radar on an Aegis cruiser or destroyer is easily able to detect spy satellites, minutes before they’re in a position to see the CVBG. Assume a CVBG speed of 30 kts for the following: 1. Detect spysat, let the spysat see your course and speed. 2. After the 2-4 minute detection window, when the spysat can no longer see you, turn 90 degrees. Pick a direction. 3. They’ve targeted where you _would_ be in 10 minutes, if you hadn’t turned. Or else they have two _more_ choices where you _might_ have turned, each 7 nm _away from_ the first choice, and 14 nm away from each other. And that’s only if you limit yourself to a 90 degree turn. A 180 would take you even farther away, depending only on your turn rate, and how far it takes you to the side of the track they predicted for you. _Only_ “Tzar Bomba” wouldn’t have had a problem taking out naval vessels, designed to take a reasonable near miss from a nuke, and _it_ wasn’t practically deliverable against anything but a target that doesn’t move, like a city. Your post shows a bit of a lack of understanding of time/motion physics and ballistic calculations. Or it assumes a _collection of_ Chinese spysats can be put up that will not be detectable by _any_ other nation. The problem is that _amateur_ satellite watchers notice these things. And have [websites](http://heavens-above.com/) devoted to anything visible by the naked eye. Which would include _all_ spysats that could detect, and then target, something like a CVBG. Result is that you’ll miss. Unless the admiral directing that fleet was an idiot. _Most_ of them aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/88 "2013-01-16T01:28:38Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > The radar on an Aegis cruiser or destroyer is easily able to detect spy satellites, minutes before they’re in a position to see the CVBG. Assume a CVBG speed of 30 kts for the following: > > 1. Detect spysat, let the spysat see your course and speed. > 2. After the 2-4 minute detection window, when the spysat can no longer see you, turn 90 degrees. Pick a direction. Slight nit, it seems to me that you wouldn’t start your evasive manuver until after your own system detected a launch. > [@](#): > > . A 180 would take you even farther away, depending only on your turn rate, and how far it takes you to the side of the track they predicted for you. _Only_ “Tzar Bomba” wouldn’t have had a problem taking out naval vessels, designed to take a reasonable near miss from a nuke, Well how near would a 500KT bomb have to explode to either disable the carrier or foul up the aircraft on deck? ---
**Author:** ![Namkcalb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c89c15/32.png) [@Namkcalb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Namkcalb)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/89 "2013-01-16T02:03:15Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > The radar on an Aegis cruiser or destroyer is easily able to detect spy satellites, minutes before they’re in a position to see the CVBG. Assume a CVBG speed of 30 kts for the following: > > 1. Detect spysat, let the spysat see your course and speed. > 2. After the 2-4 minute detection window, when the spysat can no longer see you, turn 90 degrees. Pick a direction. > 3. They’ve targeted where you _would_ be in 10 minutes, if you hadn’t turned. Or else they have two _more_ choices where you _might_ have turned, each 7 nm _away from_ the first choice, and 14 nm away from each other. And that’s only if you limit yourself to a 90 degree turn. A 180 would take you even farther away, depending only on your turn rate, and how far it takes you to the side of the track they predicted for you. _Only_ “Tzar Bomba” wouldn’t have had a problem taking out naval vessels, designed to take a reasonable near miss from a nuke, and _it_ wasn’t practically deliverable against anything but a target that doesn’t move, like a city. > > Your post shows a bit of a lack of understanding of time/motion physics and ballistic calculations. Or it assumes a _collection of_ Chinese spysats can be put up that will not be detectable by _any_ other nation. The problem is that _amateur_ satellite watchers notice these things. And have [websites](http://heavens-above.com/) devoted to anything visible by the naked eye. Which would include _all_ spysats that could detect, and then target, something like a CVBG. > > Result is that you’ll miss. Unless the admiral directing that fleet was an idiot. _Most_ of them aren’t. Satelites can be responded to, you are correct, but what if there are multiple satelites? China has many， Their behind-closed-doors ally, Russia has many. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/90 "2013-01-16T02:33:49Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Are we talking about nuclear antiship ballistic missiles, or conventional ones? > > Look, if the Chinese are nuking our carrier groups, then we’re in a scenario where hundreds of millions of people are going to die. Maybe not from being nuked, but the collapse of the global economy due to the collapse of international trade will lead to massive famine all over the world. > > So yeah, it certainly is true that our navy doesn’t have much protection against nuclear weapons. We’ve had the exact same vulnerability since the 1950s. But what’s the scenario where the Chinese are nuking our carrier groups, but not the continental United States? You can’t nuke the US Navy and not expect a nuclear response from the US navy. So the scenario is that China is invading Taiwan, the US sends a couple carrier groups, and China nukes them, and we sit there crying, and do nothing because our precious toys are gone? > > China can’t nuke a US carrier group without expecting the high likelihood of American nuclear strikes on every Chinese military site that we can target. The problem is we know this. But we can’t be sure the Chinese are reading the same rulebook. Back when the Soviets were still around, their nuclear doctrine said that a tactical nuclear attack against a purely military target outside of any national territory should not be considered as a trigger for a general nuclear war. Which would basically break down to three things: nuclear attacks against orbiting satellites, high-altitude nuclear detonations for EMP strikes, and nuclear attacks against naval forces at sea. Now the United States didn’t accept this argument. Our doctrine said that any nuclear attack would be considered as a general nuclear attack and we would respond in kind. You can see the potential for this disagreement to have had some really serious consequences. Fortunately, it never arose in the real world. But moving up to the modern day. I don’t know if China has stated its nuclear doctrine in clear terms. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they might follow the Soviet lead and declare that a tactical nuclear attack against a carrier doesn’t count as a full nuclear attack. America obviously would still disagree. But once again, it makes it possible to believe China might consider it. The Chinese might figure that in a real confrontation, the United States will hesitate over launching a full nuclear attack and killing billions of people because some ships were sank. Instead we’ll launch a more proportional response like use nuclear weapons against some military targets like army and air force bases. And China is probably thinking they have a huge military - they can survive our limited nuclear attack and still be a strong regional power but their limited nuclear attack will drive us out of East Asia until we can recover. So a limited nuclear war creates a window for China to assert control over East Asia. Are they guessing right? Would that work? The answer is nobody knows for certain. Which means it’s possible it might work and China might try it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/91 "2013-01-16T02:37:18Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Barring an attack out of the blue-- or even with one-- in the run-up to such momentous military/political events, the US military will unveil publicly and in secret a shitload of scary/effective technologies we, and any enemy, are not aware of. > > Call me naive and chauvinist, but this is what military forces do, if they’re good. Yes, but remember it’s a two-way street. It might be the Chinese military that unveils a secret shitload of new technology that we weren’t aware of and catch us by surprise. As you pointed out, this is what military forces do. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/92 "2013-01-16T02:41:40Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > The radar on an Aegis cruiser or destroyer is easily able to detect spy satellites, minutes before they’re in a position to see the CVBG. Assume a CVBG speed of 30 kts for the following: > > 1. Detect spysat, let the spysat see your course and speed. > 2. After the 2-4 minute detection window, when the spysat can no longer see you, turn 90 degrees. Pick a direction. > 3. They’ve targeted where you _would_ be in 10 minutes, if you hadn’t turned. Or else they have two _more_ choices where you _might_ have turned, each 7 nm _away from_ the first choice, and 14 nm away from each other. And that’s only if you limit yourself to a 90 degree turn. A 180 would take you even farther away, depending only on your turn rate, and how far it takes you to the side of the track they predicted for you. _Only_ “Tzar Bomba” wouldn’t have had a problem taking out naval vessels, designed to take a reasonable near miss from a nuke, and _it_ wasn’t practically deliverable against anything but a target that doesn’t move, like a city. > > Your post shows a bit of a lack of understanding of time/motion physics and ballistic calculations. Or it assumes a _collection of_ Chinese spysats can be put up that will not be detectable by _any_ other nation. The problem is that _amateur_ satellite watchers notice these things. And have [websites](http://heavens-above.com/) devoted to anything visible by the naked eye. Which would include _all_ spysats that could detect, and then target, something like a CVBG. > > Result is that you’ll miss. Unless the admiral directing that fleet was an idiot. _Most_ of them aren’t. There are self-guided missiles that don’t need to receive directions from back at their base or from orbit. You just need enough information about the location of a target in order to launch a missile in the right general area. Then the missile itself finds the target and steers in on it. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/93 "2013-01-16T03:04:01Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The Chinese might figure that in a real confrontation, the United States will hesitate over launching a full nuclear attack and killing billions of people because some ships were sank. Instead we’ll launch a more proportional response like use nuclear weapons against some military targets like army and air force bases. I don’t get it - if the scenario is a US/China confrontation over an invasion of Taiwan, why wouldn’t the US retaliate in kind? Kinda hard to pull off and supply an overseas invasion if your navy and convoys get nuked. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/94 "2013-01-16T03:40:51Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Slight nit, it seems to me that you wouldn’t start your evasive manuver until after your own system detected a launch. No, you’d start it as soon as the spysat can’t see you any more. No need to even _assume_, let alone _detect_ a launch. Don’t be where they _might_ be targeting. You don’t have to know that a nuke will actually _arrive_ there. > [@](#): > > Well how near would a 500KT bomb have to explode to either disable the carrier or foul up the aircraft on deck? A whole hell of a lot closer than 7 nautical miles. ---
**Author:** ![Namkcalb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c89c15/32.png) [@Namkcalb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Namkcalb)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/95 "2013-01-16T03:42:59Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > There are self-guided missiles that don’t need to receive directions from back at their base or from orbit. You just need enough information about the location of a target in order to launch a missile in the right general area. Then the missile itself finds the target and steers in on it. Then they are vulnerable to spoofing ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/96 "2013-01-16T03:46:40Z")
> [@Namkcalb](#): > > Satelites can be responded to, you are correct, but what if there are multiple satelites? China has many， Their behind-closed-doors ally, Russia has many. Covered in this paragraph of my post. > [@](#): > > Or it assumes a collection of Chinese spysats can be put up that will not be detectable by any other nation. The problem is that amateur satellite watchers notice these things. And have [websites](http://heavens-above.com/) devoted to anything visible by the naked eye. Which would include all spysats that could detect, and then target, something like a CVBG. Trust me, if civilian websites know what’s up there, so does every fucking military on this planet. ---
**Author:** ![Namkcalb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c89c15/32.png) [@Namkcalb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Namkcalb)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/97 "2013-01-16T03:52:38Z")
@Chesire Human - you misunderstand my point, I am saying constant surveilence would render evasive action futile as their every move would be watched, I am assuming the Chinese missile will have real-time course correction. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/98 "2013-01-16T04:01:19Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > I don’t get it - if the scenario is a US/China confrontation over an invasion of Taiwan, why wouldn’t the US retaliate in kind? Kinda hard to pull off and supply an overseas invasion if your navy and convoys get nuked. Which is certainly a possible strategy. But transport ships are a lot cheaper than aircraft carriers. China can build a bunch of transport ships and disperse them. The loss of ten transport ships vs the loss of ten carriers? As long as the response stays proportionate China wins the numbers game. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/99 "2013-01-16T04:06:17Z")
> [@Namkcalb](#): > > Then they are vulnerable to spoofing Sure. But American defenses are vulnerable to spoofing too. That’s the whole point. China can afford to throw a whole bunch of attacks against the American Navy and have the majority of them be defeated. But the American Navy needs to have and maintain a virtually perfect defense to survive. ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082/100 "2013-01-16T04:16:27Z")
Just from informal descriptions by some USN guys. Remember the Kursk submarine? It’s a missile sub, designed to take out a carrier task force using nukes. It launches ss-19 (shipwreck) missiles each carrying a 110-k warhead. When the sub, which is shadowing the TF, receives the crucial radio message, it quickly floods its tubes and fires at least 2 missiles before US hunter subs can take it out. The first missile has a radar-sensitive fuse. Any signals from an AWAC, a warplane, or a ship will cause it to detonate. The 110-kiloton blast will blind every electronic device within 50 miles (is this true?) Having done that, the next missile (or two or three) will home in using their own radar and melt the task force. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-defense-against-the-chinese-ant-ship-ballistic-missile/647082.md?page=6)