Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DanielNoWrite t1_iymo911 wrote

Reply to comment by reflect-the-sun in Is it possible that nuclear defense technologies will surpass the abilities of nuclear weapons in the future, rendering them near useless? by Wide-Escape-5618

...that really isn't how it is.

The engineering challenges are well known, the tests and success rate is documented as it's not possible to keep secret. I am American and my masters is in military development. We do not have a magical ballistic missile shield hiding up our sleeves.

14

Guzikk t1_iyovx0z wrote

I was working on military simulations, mainly predicting ballistic trajectories using ML models during my CS degree. It was fun, and I thought these simulations were easily replicable in real-life scenarios.

3 years later I had a conversation with my friend that is working on this subject on a daily basis, for one of the Israeli companies that build such systems (not RADS). He explained why - even in 50 years - we wouldn't be able to create a 100% accurate anti-missle defense system.

4

UniversalMomentum t1_iyn8ej7 wrote

We have 4 layers of ICBM defense. AEGIS should have a decent intercept rate. Sure you can overwhelm it, but it should shoot down a quite a few missiles. A masters degree doesn't mean you've kept your info updated, it just means at one point in your life you got a degree and at face value you're just some rando on the internet making claims without providing proof.
https://www.mwrf.com/markets/defense/article/21848658/the-3-major-phases-of-effective-missile-defense-systems

3

[deleted] t1_iymtdbd wrote

[deleted]

0

TheDrummerMB t1_iyn00n4 wrote

>AEGIS should have a decent intercept rate. Sure you can overwhelm it, but it should shoot down a quite a few missiles

lol think you just proved their point

2

DanielNoWrite t1_iyn6j15 wrote

I'm aware of the various missile defense systems we've developed. None have demonstrated a consistent ability to shoot down ICBMs.

We've had more luck with short and medium range defense, but that's not really what we're talking about here.

With ICBMs, you either have to shoot it down during boost, which means you more or less have to be on station waiting for the launch, or you have to shoot it down midcourse, when it's going 15,000mph a hundred miles above the planet.

They talk about terminal defense, but I'll believe that when I see it.

The closest thing we have to a real defense capability is the GMD, which claims a "50% success rate" against individually launched missiles, with advanced preparation and warning, and a couple more caveats besides. It's nothing close to a real world demonstration. At best it's a last ditch Hail-Mary strategy.

The simple fact is that it's really, really hard to shoot down something moving that fast. A bullet is standing still by comparison. And even if we could that doesn't solve for hypersonic cruise missiles, stealth bombers, or any of a half dozen other deployment strategies.

If we did develop truly reliable ballistic missile defense, it would probably be a bad thing, as our adversaries would presumably not be too far behind, and we'd enter a world in which nukes could be deployed through other means without the risk of being immediately blanketed by ICBMs in response.

1

reflect-the-sun t1_iympevy wrote

I respect your answer regardless of your background, but now you have information that I can use to demonstrate my point.

Based on your knowledge, how long would it take to fire a Russian nuke from the moment the order is received?

−2

DanielNoWrite t1_iyn7kvc wrote

I don't know offhand, and the actual tested time may even be classified, but for context the number typically given with for American missiles is under five minutes between the president issuing the order and the missile leaving the silo.

From there, it depends on whether the missile was land based or launched from a sub, but for land based missiles it'll be hitting it's target perhaps half an hour later, and significantly shorter if it's launched by a sub offshore.

2

reflect-the-sun t1_iyndruv wrote

So if you can infiltrate comms then you've got a 30-minute heads-up on the launch. From the situation in Ukraine it's clear the USA and her Allies already have access to Russian comms on the battlefield and within the Russian govt so we can assume they'll know when a launch order is given.

Considering the USA has wide-angle video surveillance satellites with a 10cm resolution and AI processing they likely know everything that's happening at each launch site, and they'd have them pre-targeted, including Russian subs that they're tracking 24/7.

Finally, all they need is a weapons delivery system to target one of these launch sites and fire upon it within the 30-minute launch period. Better still, fire at it as the launch is taking place and take advantage of collateral damage to the launch site.

Furthermore, I am sure the Russians are aware of this potential threat to their launch sites. If you watch this clip, you'll see that the missile is on a mobile launcher and features a complex launch function to minimise static positioning with a short launch time-period and rapid acceleration. It would also explain why Russian is developing terror weapons like this.

If the USA can destroy air-gapped centrifuges in Iran for making uranium you can bet your balls they can target and neutralise nuclear-capable missiles for threatening their country.

0

DanielNoWrite t1_iynh5wz wrote

I mean no disrespect, but this simply doesn't reflect reality.

You begin by casually assuming penetration of Russian communications is so absolute we'd know of a launch order, based on our abilities to monitor battlefield communications and track the mass mobilization of the hundreds of thousands of troops?

Then you seem to misunderstand that "30 minutes" is the time until the missile hits Washington DC, not the time until the launch, and frankly it wouldn't make much difference even if that were the case.

Also, we somehow have the ability to hit all their launch sites before they even fire?

Also, we're tracking all Russian subs 24/7?

Then you compare all of this to cyber-sabotage of Iranian centrifuges. Which isn't at all related and also hasn't stopped Iran's nuclear program.

The US has amazing capabilities, but it's not magic. There is zero chance we would be able to prevent or even significantly mitigate a nuclear attack were it to occur.

If North Korea happens to launch a single missile our way, we might be able to stop it, but I wouldn't count on it. A country like Russia launching an attack would be the end of the world for everyone.

9