Nuke tipped Missile Defense?

[laigle]

@wevets

Perhaps SDI was, but the program hasn’t been called SDI for more than a decade. It would seem that the pipe dream of a defense against an attack by hundreds of ICBMs has been given up on.

The changes and shakeups in the program over the last twelve years have given it a very different emphasis. The publicly available information about what is planned doesn’t look at all like it would have the capability of defending against an attack by a major nuclear power. Even if China launched 20 ICBMs simultaneously, it would probably overwhelm the system.

No, the publically available information about what is planned looks like it’s a halfwitted attempt to defraud the tax payers on behalf of a few aerospace companies. There is absolutely no reason why a rogue state or terrorist group would deliver a nuclear warhead by ICBM. The only value to ICBMs is the ability to launch a vast nuclear strike on short notice. If someone wants to single-strike New York, they’re going to move the warhead by conventional means.

[bonzer]

@Pushkin

As an aside, I do recall reading somewhere that Moscow was/is defending from incoming ICBM’s by four nuclear missiles of its own to act as a last minute defence, detonating infront of an incoming missile.
Is this true? Is the system still in operation?

Broadly, yes: A-135. Though, given changing circumstances, they no longer appear to be armed with nuclear warheads.
I don’t think anyone, even the Soviets, ever thought that the system could fend off anything other than a very simple attack.

[jshore]

@Stranger On A Train

From what I understand, the assessments of the EKV (kill vehicle) from a functional point of view have been largely successful (five out of seven ain’t bad at all in this kind of test). However, these are tests of the single system launched off of a different booster than the operational one, against known and discriminated targets.

It is also worth noting that the 5 out of 7 number includes, I believe, only those tests that have made it that far … to what they call the “end game”. Apparently, if the missile doesn’t even make it out of the silo (as in the last 2 tests), it doesn’t count as a failure. After all, after the failure in December, the head of the missile defense program apparently explained that the system “would work” if nothing went wrong.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@jshore

It is also worth noting that the 5 out of 7 number includes, I believe, only those tests that have made it that far … to what they call the “end game”. Apparently, if the missile doesn’t even make it out of the silo (as in the last 2 tests), it doesn’t count as a failure. After all, after the failure in December, the head of the missile defense program apparently explained that the system “would work” if nothing went wrong.

Well, to be fair, if the vehicle doesn’t launch it isn’t a failure of the EKV, but of the booster (or in the case of the last launch, the ground support equipment). But, yeah, there hasn’t been a single successful fully “integrated flight test” in the whole program. Nonetheless, we have birds in the hole and politicians promising that we are protected. :rolleyes:

I wouldn’t be nearly so cynical about it if it weren’t so obviously a political ploy. These programs take time and money–a lot of both–to be successful. Developing the original Minuteman missile was a program of a size that dwarfed the Manhattan project in complexity and cost, and is rivaled only by the Saturn V program. If we were committed to that kind of long-term investment then the technical hurdles could conceivably be overcome (the logistical and strategic critcisms still remain) but the fact that this is supposed to be some fast and cheap development program, to be in place before an election regardless of readiness, tells the true intent behind the program.

Fah.

Stranger

[lokij]

Now I remember why I don’t post here more often, I spout my mouth off in the thread regarding Canada about how I never hear about nuclear tipped interceptors… sigh