October 15, 2022
Any military buffs who could comment on this?
With the renewed risk of nuclear war, should the US be developing new antimissile systems? After all, it is the only possible direct defense against the Russian nuclear arsenal The only defense that exists right now is mutual assured destruction- if they blow us up, we blow them up.
For all I know maybe there are new missile defense systems being worked on already. It seems to me with the advances in semiconductors and other technology that missile defense today could be far superior to the systems developed several decades ago.
But also I wonder how much it matters. If some nukes are launched and they get intercepted and exploded en route, will it just mean they will blow up in the air and spew radiation all over and kill off everyone anyway?
Tim replies:
Tricky question. On the one hand leaving ourselves open with MAD is not a sustainable policy; it means any conflict can lead to all out nuclear war. On the other hand offensive technology is always ahead of defensive, and stopping incoming missiles is quite difficult. Stealth technology and a host of other things make it nearly impossible to stop all or even most missiles, however losing ten, fifteen cities is better than losing all of them.
Also, if missile defense works it would mean a whole new approach to mass destruction - like using biological weapons instead of nukes.
Personally, I favor missile defense. I think that we should try everything we can to stop a nuclear attack. And if there is an accidental launch we can stop it. Now if someone accidentally launches the birds it's doomsday.
We almost had a nuclear war over a flock of birds in East Germany back in the Cold War days.
As for you last worry about radiation from destroyed missiles, there would be some but not that much. It would be a "radiological bomb" essentially and the winds would disperse the radiation so it wouldn't really be much, if anything. The dangerous radioactivity stems from the detonation of the bomb, not the material in the bomb itself. The release of gamma rays and the powerful explosive force destabilizes dirt and debris and makes it radioactive fallout. You don't get that with the bomb itself air-bursting.
But you do get a powerful Compton effect. That is where a gamma ray burst strips electrons off the air molecules and it proceeds as a shock wave of highly energetic electromagnetic
BUT none of that happens when you simply destroy a nuclear weapon in the air (unless you nuke it.) Missile defense is generally safe in that regard.
Which is why I favor it; it destroys the missiles before they can explode. Anything that does that is worth while, in my view. But it also means those with the weapons may feel more comfortable launching - and those who don't launch may become complacent with their perceived defensive system in place.
One final word; the Russians were furious that we planned to deploy a missile defense system, largely because they couldn't do it themselves and felt it necessary to keep up with us. It was a big part of what brought the Soviet Union down. NOT the deployment but the threat of it.
This was just one of the many mistakes the U.S. made in the post-Soviet era. We promised to build a nuclear umbrella, and at the same time expanded NATO to Russia's doorstep. We also took steps to build a pipeline to bring Asian gas and oil to Europe while circumventing Russia, and began pushing the "green" tech to hurt their economy. We also manipulated the petrodollar at Russia's expense.
They have reason for grievance.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:04 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 657 words, total size 4 kb.
35 queries taking 0.1884 seconds, 183 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
