Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AnotherDreamer1024 t1_iymhn0y wrote

No system is 100% effective. No system.

I also have worked on ballistic missile defense systems and they all have weaknesses.

So when one goes from a probability of hit (Ph) of 50% to 55%, then yes, it's an excellent improvement, but it's still 50%'ish.

Even if the probability of a kill (Pk) is 100%, it's that pesky Ph that does one in.

i.e. If I hit it, it's dead. It's the hitting part that's hard.

1

Phssthp0kThePak t1_iymlx61 wrote

How does the calculation change if the ABM is nuclear too? Politically we are relying on kinetic kill which seems way harder.

1

zenfalc t1_iyodw5j wrote

It isn't actually, but that's because we're relying on direct hits. Place a warhead with tungsten "sand", a claymore like explosive, and a decent gimbal, in the cone, and just get close. The kinetic differential should make that extremely effective at disabling hardware across a radius of a dozen meters or so. Nuke is disabled if not shattered, and cheaply to boot.

1