Taking out the guidance system in nukes, how long?

How long until we can just send some sort of laser, magnet, electrical or another type of wave at a nuke's propulsion system rather than have to try and shoot it down, which apparently doesn't work very well right?

They could then fall in the ocean if its ... going across an ocean.

That would be AWESOME, because first someone would then have to disable the disabler technology and THEN send a nuke.

And we could have back up generator disablers from hidden positions, woot woot!

:o

So, instead of nukes dropping on known, precise targets that one can possibly develop defense for, you'd rather have then dropping god knows where?...ok, shoot for new york from a launch site near kiev....and hit the caldera at yellow stone?....makes since to me.

Originally Posted by vt1099ace

So, instead of nukes dropping on known, precise targets that one can possibly develop defense for, you'd rather have then dropping god knows where?...ok, shoot for new york from a launch site near kiev....and hit the caldera at yellow stone?....makes since to me.

Lmao well, no, I'd like the propulsion systems to go out too, so they fall in the ocean, i will edit my original post.

Originally Posted by vt1099ace

So, instead of nukes dropping on known, precise targets that one can possibly develop defense for, you'd rather have then dropping god knows where?...ok, shoot for new york from a launch site near kiev....and hit the caldera at yellow stone?....makes since to me.

Why would the Ukraine want to nuke the US?

(If you just used Kiev as a random city, ignore this).

In any scenario involving nuclear strikes from China/Russia or the US for that matter, shooting these things down will just not be possible, the conventional missiles to nuclear-tipped missiles ratio will likely be in the tens of thousands to whatever number of nukes each country has, there's this thingy in Alaska called HAARP, which toys with elector-magnetic fields and waves(not sure I got the correct term but you guys get the point) and since it's budget is part of DoD and is quite powerful on paper, it's safe to assume it might be useful in taking out incoming nukes, it's also rather safe to assume that other countries are in the process of developing such technologies, there's no way to know if it can, or ever will be able to curb a massive nuclear strike though.

Originally Posted by Cover3

In any scenario involving nuclear strikes from China/Russia or the US for that matter, shooting these things down will just not be possible, the conventional missiles to nuclear-tipped missiles ratio will likely be in the tens of thousands to whatever number of nukes each country has, there's this thingy in Alaska called HAARP, which toys with elector-magnetic fields and waves(not sure I got the correct term but you guys get the point) and since it's budget is part of DoD and is quite powerful on paper, it's safe to assume it might be useful in taking out incoming nukes, it's also rather safe to assume that other countries are in the process of developing such technologies, there's no way to know if it can, or ever will be able to curb a massive nuclear strike though.

Good info.

Idk man.. I think if we develop some sort of elector magnetic field that can screw with missiles, that after a while it will likely be cheapter to maintain than the land and materials of maintaining a nuclear silo.

But, I think being able to have some sort of electro magnetor (lol) strong enough to take over smoeone elses electro magnetor in order to disable it, and then nuke them, would be the costly endeavor.

And as long as democratic or non crazy countries keep developing the next step in technology first, I don't see a nuclear war ever happening.

Once we get to that point that is. But right now, it seems very dangerous.

Keep in mind people are tactical creatures. A better way of shooting down all the missiles (as opposed to a point defense) would probably mean more decoys, or worse, targeting the upper atmosphere to create a bad emp effect.

In many ways, we're better off with both ourselves and our potential opponents exposed. The old ABM treaty was based on this idea.

Originally Posted by bellisaurius

Keep in mind people are tactical creatures. A better way of shooting down all the missiles (as opposed to a point defense) would probably mean more decoys, or worse, targeting the upper atmosphere to create a bad emp effect.

In many ways, we're better off with both ourselves and our potential opponents exposed. The old ABM treaty was based on this idea.

How is the world better with everyone close to nuclear disaster as opposed to not being close to nuclear disaster? Or is that not what you meant by we are better off with ourselves and our opponents exposed.?

Decoys, yeah thats true. Very true. BUT, actually, maybe not, because we KNOW where the nukes are based on intelligence, so that probably isnt as big a factor actually.

Now, targeting upper atmosphere, idk, I guess we'd have to disable those ones too.

Stuff I definitely have not though about haha wow..

It's mostly game theory. If a person feels they can defend against an opponent's attack, then the person able to defend himself is more likely to eventually launch an attack. It gets worse if both sides feel they can defend against an attack,or that the effect of the attack would be very survivable, then one can launch an attack and the sense of gambling everything away is lessened.

Up until recently, the main defense against a nuclear attack is having lots of nukes, some of which are hidden at sea (bombers used to be an important part, but I'm not certain if they're still part of the triad). Then, even the worst surprise attack (boomer off the coasts, followed by targetting of our nukes) still probably won't be able to get all of ours, and you only need a couple hundred warheads to hit the populations and strategic targets for the return strike.

Originally Posted by skycloud86

Why would the Ukraine want to nuke the US?

(If you just used Kiev as a random city, ignore this).

Random choice in city with a dash of cold-war flashback...