US successfully tests THAAD missile system - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=NEWS;52456958] The U.S. on Tuesday test-fired its THAAD anti-ballistic missile system from Alaska that successfully intercepted a target missile launched from an Air Force Cargo plane north of Hawaii. The drill was previously scheduled in June and comes a week after North Korea successfully test-launched an intermediate-range ballistic missile capable of hitting Alaska. [/QUOTE] Source: [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/11/us-successfully-tests-thaad-missile-system-amid-north-korean-tensions.html"]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/11/us-successfully-tests-thaad-missile-system-amid-north-korean-tensions.html[/URL]

How different is the plane missile from an ICBM? A video was posted on FP some time ago (maybe in a similar thread) of how difficult it is to intercept an ICBM, seeing as they go up into upper atmosphere and come back down at ridiculous speeds?

[QUOTE=surfur;52458344]How different is the plane missile from an ICBM? A video was posted on FP some time ago (maybe in a similar thread) of how difficult it is to intercept an ICBM, seeing as they go up into upper atmosphere and come back down at ridiculous speeds?[/QUOTE] Mid-range missiles are smaller and don't leave the atmosphere. ABMs don't have to travel quite as far to intercept them, and because they're smaller they have a far less chance of being capable of deploying decoys or countermeasures.

[QUOTE=surfur;52458344]How different is the plane missile from an ICBM? A video was posted on FP some time ago (maybe in a similar thread) of how difficult it is to intercept an ICBM, seeing as they go up into upper atmosphere and come back down at ridiculous speeds?[/QUOTE] Extremely different. ICBM warhead already on the return is a much, much faster moving target, with an actually smaller radar profile. I'm not sure if the heat signature is bigger or smaller (thruster versus friction heating) but probably less distinct anyway, and again, you are trying to track a faster moving target which makes it harder. And finally, the worst thing - the "real deal" ICBMs of today are often made up of Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV) which means a single ICBM falls apart into a dozen or so smaller warheads at the peak of the trajectory (literally in space, too far to engage for any of the current tech, at that point) which individually land as far as major cities distance apart. If we talk of a legit mass ICBM armed country like Russia or China and an all out nuclear conflict, launch of these by volume would mean that even if 3/4 of these MIRVs got intercepted, a [I]fuckton[/I] people would still die.

[QUOTE=millan;52458859]Extremely different. ICBM warhead already on the return is a much, much faster moving target, with an actually smaller radar profile. I'm not sure if the heat signature is bigger or smaller (thruster versus friction heating) but probably less distinct anyway, and again, you are trying to track a faster moving target which makes it harder. And finally, the worst thing - the "real deal" ICBMs of today are often made up of Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV) which means a single ICBM falls apart into a dozen or so smaller warheads at the peak of the trajectory (literally in space, too far to engage for any of the current tech, at that point) which individually land as far as major cities distance apart. If we talk of a legit mass ICBM armed country like Russia or China and an all out nuclear conflict, launch of these by volume would mean that[B] even if 3/4 of these MIRVs got intercepted[/B], a [I]fuckton[/I] people would still die.[/QUOTE] to be completely frank, in a real world scenario, not even 10% would get intercepted. Legit ICBM interception is EXTREMELY difficult. Maybe 40% would get intercepted if our entire missile defense system was online, in position, and alert at the time of the attack, but no. There is a reason the MAD philosophy has existed for so long. Banking on the fact that their hatred for us is just ever so slightly less than the love for their own country because they know we can and will take them with us if it comes down to it.

I don't think its going to be very effective against a nation like Russia or China. But it could severely disrupt a nation like North Korea whose missiles will be limited and primitive at best. The tech will likely evolve more over time, its been going on since the Reagan's Star Wars in the 80's after all.

[QUOTE=Saxon;52459206]I don't think its going to be very effective against a nation like Russia or China. But it could severely disrupt a nation like North Korea whose missiles will be limited and primitive at best. The tech will likely evolve more over time, its been going on since the Reagan's Star Wars in the 80's after all.[/QUOTE] I don't know enough of these systems deployed in every state could have some effect, but if it gets to the point were thousands of nuclear weapons are flying all over the place.. I don't think we have anything to worry about since we all will be dead

Nuke MIRV's are so fucking ridiculously destructive and evil. Jesus.

[quote]MIRVs are real things[/quote] I thought that was just an idea from FALLOUT oh my god that's terrifing

[QUOTE=Monkey pie;52460457]Nuke MIRV's are so fucking ridiculously destructive and evil. Jesus.[/QUOTE] Quoting Stuart Slade for this one. [quote] Multiple Independently-Targeted Re-Entry Vehicles (MIRVs) Why they exist Although MIRVs are often regarded as a development of MRVs, in fact they come from a totally different logic. In a ballistic missile site, the missile itself represents only a small proportion of the cost of the system (usually 10 - 20 percent). The bulk of that cost is represented by the silo and the command control system that goes with it. That cost is dorectly related to the number of missiles, not the number of warheads on each missile. Therefore, it is much less expensive to built 100 missiles with ten warheads each that 1,000 missiles with one warhead each. All the money saved can be invested in making the silos much harder and thus more difficult to destroy (meaning the enemy must fire more missiles at them to guarantee their destruction). How it works The missile bus containing the warheads is designed so that it can make changes in its attitude and pitch between discharging warheads. It is then programmed so that, at the appropriate time, it can make those changes before discharging a warhead and can, thus, aim each warhead at a separate target. In theory it can aim all its warheads at different targets, in reality things are much more complex. The problem is that the system has to discharge its warheads one at a time. It cannot discharge the whole lot at once. This puts a limit on how many it can discharge in the time available. Also, the degree of manoeuvering is strictly limited. So, the targets engaged by a single MIRV missile are limited toa relatively restricted footprint. Also, there are a lot more variable, many random and unpredictable, in aiming and discharging the MIRV bus which mean that MIRV missile-delivered RVs are a LOT less accurate than unitary RVs. So much so that if the launch distance is too far back from the target, the MIRVs are likely to miss by so much that they will be useless. So the distance at which the MIRV can discharge is severely limited. It should also be noted that the MIRV bus is very complex and very sensitive. Effects on ABM MIRVs are also often promoted as a way of beating an ABM defense by "swamping it", apparently on the assumption that each descending RV would have to be destroyed individually. In fact, this is, again, not the case. Using nuclear-tipped ABMs, the relatively tightly clustered MIRVs would be taken out by a single shot. However, the simplest technique of eliminating MIRVs is, once again, to kill the bus before it discharges its warheads. This needs some extended range - the effect of MIRVs on the Nike-Zeus program was to upgrade the Zeus interceptor so that it had the range necessary to kill the MIRV bus before it discharged its warheads. That's why the range was increased from 250km (more than adequate to kill an MRV bus) to 740km (way more than adequate to kill any projected MIRV bus. Also, as a bonus, it needed only tiny amounts of damage or disturbance to render the MIRV bus ineffective. Far from being a way of beating an ABM defense, MIRVs were only credible in the absence of ABMs of adequate range.[/quote]

How about MAD though?

And if you think MIRVs are bad oh boy! The SLAM missile will make you think nuclear MIRVs are a pleasant jaunt in the park. An all you can eat buffet of death including: organ rupture upto a 3 mile radius from the sonic boom, getting nuked, suffering severe radiation poisioning in a 10 mile radius, getting nuked again, being virtually undetectable by radar, and finally having a large swathe of your country soaked in deadly radioactive decay! and to top that all off it circles around the skies for weeks.

[QUOTE=Shirt.;52461463]And if you think MIRVs are bad oh boy! The SLAM missile will make you think nuclear MIRVs are a pleasant jaunt in the park.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=WIKI;52461463]The Supersonic Low Altitude Missile or SLAM was a U.S. Air Force nuclear weapons project conceived around 1955, and cancelled in 1964. SLAMs were conceived of as unmanned nuclear-powered ramjets capable of delivering thermonuclear warheads deep into enemy territory. The development of ICBMs in the 1950s rendered the concept of SLAMs obsolete. Advances in defensive ground radar also made the stratagem of low-altitude evasion ineffective. Although it never proceeded beyond the initial design and testing phase before being declared obsolete, the design contained several radical innovations as a nuclear delivery system.[/QUOTE] I don't know man the MIRV system scares the hell out of me a whole lot more than an outdated ICBM.

[QUOTE=Cyler;52461495]I don't know man the MIRV system scares the hell out of me a whole lot more than an outdated ICBM.[/QUOTE] The part that's meant to be terrifying is [quote]The use of a nuclear engine in the airframe promised to give the missile staggering and unprecedented low-altitude range, estimated to be roughly 113,000 miles (182,000 km) (over four and a half times the equatorial circumference of the earth). The engine also acted as a secondary weapon for the missile: direct neutron radiation from the virtually unshielded reactor would sicken, injure, or kill living things beneath the flight path; the stream of fallout left in its wake would poison enemy territory; and its strategically selected crash site would receive intense radioactive contamination. In addition, the sonic waves given off by its passage would damage ground installations.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Cyler;52461495]I don't know man the MIRV system scares the hell out of me a whole lot more than an outdated ICBM.[/QUOTE] It's not an ICBM though, it's a cruise missile. It literally just flies along spewing radioactive material from it's direct cycle nuclear ramjets while dropping warheads on it's assigned targets. Then, at the end of it's flight, it just crashes it's mess of nuclear material onto one last target. While it might not do as much damage to one target as a MIRV'd missile, it's still a pretty unpleasant weapon of war which spreads it's impact over a wider area. That was, if it'd been made.

[QUOTE=Shirt.;52461463]And if you think MIRVs are bad oh boy! The SLAM missile will make you think nuclear MIRVs are a pleasant jaunt in the park. An all you can eat buffet of death including: organ rupture upto a 3 mile radius from the sonic boom, getting nuked, suffering severe radiation poisioning in a 10 mile radius, getting nuked again, being virtually undetectable by radar, and finally having a large swathe of your country soaked in deadly radioactive decay! and to top that all off it circles around the skies for weeks.[/QUOTE] I read up on this. Yo what the fuck. Who would invent something like this. Leaving a trail of intense radiation?

[QUOTE=Monkey pie;52464147]I read up on this. Yo what the fuck. Who would invent something like this. Leaving a trail of intense radiation?[/QUOTE] When the world is getting nuked to hell anyway, do you really care about that much? Remember it was deep in the cold war, when the Russkies were totally going to flip their nukes at the tip of a hat.

[QUOTE=Monkey pie;52460457]Nuke MIRV's are so fucking ridiculously destructive and evil. Jesus.[/QUOTE] How can you say that when they've never been deployed? Perhaps their existence is the only thing keeping Russia from fighting a ground war with us. The fact missiles are impossible to defend from is what kept the cold war from boiling over. MAD does seem to work.

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;52460537]I thought that was just an idea from FALLOUT oh my god that's terrifing[/QUOTE] [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/msLRQME.jpg[/img_thumb] At the end of each of those lines would be a nuclear explosion. And that's just from [I]one[/I] missile.

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;52464473]How can you say that when they've never been deployed? Perhaps their existence is the only thing keeping Russia from fighting a ground war with us. [/QUOTE] We dont have any MIRV equipped ICBMs since we took the Peacekeepers out of service and modified the current stock of Minutemen to comply with START II. On our SLBMs, sure, but MIRVs arent really a nessecary feature of a nuclear deterrent.

[QUOTE=Qbe-tex;52465366]I don't understand this. Doesn't SALT II prohibit the development of anti-nuke measures? Was it never ratified or something? I mean, I'm aware that because of with MIRVs the anti-nuke guns/system will do fuck-all but isn't it still a violation of the contract? I'm aware that countries having nuclear weapons isn't good, but this encourages the construction of many MORE nukes as opposed to just the amount needed to fuck shit up. Not that I think it's bad mind you. It means that there might be places where the nukes would hit small-time and they can be protected, kinda like New Vegas in Fallout.[/QUOTE] SALT II was signed but never ratified.

[QUOTE=Qbe-tex;52465366]I don't understand this. Doesn't SALT II prohibit the development of anti-nuke measures? Was it never ratified or something? I mean, I'm aware that because of with MIRVs the anti-nuke guns/system will do fuck-all but isn't it still a violation of the contract? I'm aware that countries having nuclear weapons isn't good, but this encourages the construction of many MORE nukes as opposed to just the amount needed to fuck shit up. Not that I think it's bad mind you. It means that there might be places where the nukes would hit small-time and they can be protected, kinda like New Vegas in Fallout.[/QUOTE] 'Ballistic missile' is a very broad term and the ABM treaty you're talking about was quite specific in that it only limited, but didn't ban, defences against strategic ICBMs. Many ballistic missiles are much shorter in range and often not even nuclear-tipped. The Scud probably being the most famous example. You even see ballistic missiles being developed for anti-ship roles now in the form of the DF-21D, which to add an extra layer can possibly be nuclear tipped but is a tactical weapon. Anti-ballistic doesn't necessarily mean anti-nuke.