# Taking out the guidance system in nukes, how long?



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

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!


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

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._


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

vt1099ace said:


> 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.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

vt1099ace said:


> 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).


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

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.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> 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.


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

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.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

bellisaurius said:


> 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..


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

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.


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

skycloud86 said:


> 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...


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

A major problem I see with all these theories is the fact that 'Balistic Missle' is just that.._balistic_ once the engines boost it to apogee they're done and most likely armed at that point too, destroying guidance systems means it falls randomly (hello yellowstone, goodbye whole wrold!), targetting engiine? worthless at that point unless it's before apogee, then it would be dropping randomly anywhere with the possibilty of still being armed. 

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) meaning I have so much that if you attack me, I can destroy you too *at the time *was really the only course. Now in the aftermath of 50 years of that there are so many 'loose nukes' possible out there the only real defense is a ground effort to both 'get them out of circulation' and 'liguidate those that want them'... IMHO

hmmm, maybe a TV/Novel series in a james bondish/stargate-ish kind of way?...


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

vt1099ace said:


> A major problem I see with all these theories is the fact that 'Balistic Missle' is just that.._balistic_ once the engines boost it to apogee they're done and most likely armed at that point too, destroying guidance systems means it falls randomly (hello yellowstone, goodbye whole wrold!), targetting engiine? worthless at that point unless it's before apogee, then it would be dropping randomly anywhere with the possibilty of still being armed.
> 
> MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) meaning I have so much that if you attack me, I can destroy you too *at the time *was really the only course. Now in the aftermath of 50 years of that there are so many 'loose nukes' possible out there the only real defense is a ground effort to both 'get them out of circulation' and 'liguidate those that want them'... IMHO
> 
> hmmm, maybe a TV/Novel series in a james bondish/stargate-ish kind of way?...


Well dropping in an ocean could be better though. Ah I see what MAD is now. THanks a bunch.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

bellisaurius said:


> 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.


t

So if we had a sort of electo magnetic capability to knock out electrical systems, then I think the main defense against nuclear attack would be something eventually cheaper than maintaining a lot of missile silos. Or at least if we had to create a bunch of electrically capable systems, perhaps that could have the dual effect of allowing us free energy as well or something.. idk.

I guess there will always be just as much threat though, but, if a decent power gets the technology first, then at least we know there wont be nuclear wars..


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

> So if we had a sort of electo magnetic capability to knock out electrical systems, then I think the main defense against nuclear attack would be something eventually cheaper than maintaining a lot of missile silos.


Maybe cheaper maybe not, but not necessarily safer, as it makes a superpower war more likely because either China or Russia will feel the system can protect against _their_ nukes, and two possibilities exist: 1) They don;t think they'll be able to make one before the US blackmails them, so they'll have to start a war now, or 2) They think they'll get one soon too, and then both sides feel they can get into a general war safely. 

So, big time missile defense hurts us with our fellow large countries, but what about the smaller ones? Well, they may not even bother to send a missile, especially if a counter system was known. Why not just have a little sailing boat slink into new york harbor one night instead. 


This all said, the technology is worth pursuing (I don't disagree with that), just that it would be useful to be able to make it if we knew a war was coming, that the basics had been worked out.


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

Souled In said:


> Well dropping in an ocean could be better though.


 
not for greenpeace :kitteh:


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

vt1099ace said:


> not for greenpeace :kitteh:


Are you saying that dropping a nuke in the ocean would kill more people eventually than the millions of people it would kill dropping on land?

Hardly a joking matter..


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

bellisaurius said:


> Maybe cheaper maybe not, but not necessarily safer, as it makes a superpower war more likely because either China or Russia will feel the system can protect against _their_ nukes, and two possibilities exist: 1) They don;t think they'll be able to make one before the US blackmails them, so they'll have to start a war now, or 2) They think they'll get one soon too, and then both sides feel they can get into a general war safely.
> 
> So, big time missile defense hurts us with our fellow large countries, but what about the smaller ones? Well, they may not even bother to send a missile, especially if a counter system was known. Why not just have a little sailing boat slink into new york harbor one night instead.
> 
> ...


It leaves the *MAD* idea as the most viable option...using each others popuulations as hostages to prevent a military force from attacking...problem comes back around to a military force _not_ under a government control (so no national population to hostage, or caring about if they did) getting a nuke they can sail into NY of SF bay..

...still good TV drama


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

Souled In said:


> Are you saying that dropping a nuke in the ocean would kill more people eventually than the millions of people it would kill dropping on land?
> 
> Hardly a joking matter..


I was being catty...nuking whales :laughing:


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

vt1099ace said:


> I was being catty...nuking whales :laughing:


Oh okay then


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

Souled In said:


> Oh okay then


but seriously,
go back and look at the pacific test sights (bakini, etc) to see how that would have enviromental impact on sea life...the radioactive isotopes may take 10,000 years to decay but dispersed in water covering 3/4 of the planet would be a minor problem. Over time, it's the reef, fish, whales, islands, radioactive beaches from the isotopes in the sands that i'd worry about....example, look how mercury collects in fish today, how would radioactive elements in time?


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

vt1099ace said:


> but seriously,
> go back and look at the pacific test sights (bakini, etc) to see how that would have enviromental impact on sea life...the radioactive isotopes may take 10,000 years to decay but dispersed in water covering 3/4 of the planet would be a minor problem. Over time, it's the reef, fish, whales, islands, radioactive beaches from the isotopes in the sands that i'd worry about....example, look how mercury collects in fish today, how would radioactive elements in time?


I understand that, but comparing it to millions of humans dying seems like a weird way to get attention for the problem, unless you really think it would result in more deaths some how, or you think a fishes life is worth killing humans over. Dolphins can be equivalent to an age 5 child, and I do think we should take better care of them. Sea life has amazing technology, but ultimately, they aren't afraid of going to hell O-o

I understand what you are saying though, good info.


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

Souled In said:


> I understand that, but comparing it to millions of humans dying seems like a weird way to get attention for the problem, unless you really think it would result in more deaths some how, or you think a fishes life is worth killing humans over. Dolphins can be equivalent to an age 5 child, and I do think we should take better care of them. Sea life has amazing technology, but ultimately, they aren't afraid of going to hell O-o
> 
> I understand what you are saying though, good info.


With 7 billion (and growing) population the oceans are a source of food for much of those 7 billion, If we could knock out nukes into the seas the long term residual effects on the people that rely on the oceans (may even take human generations, eating contaminated fish) needs to be a concern beyond 'let protect this group now...' What the point when you end up poisoning yourself later? 

Im not for 'screw'm, that what they get for living in a city that gets nuked'...I'm trying to take get you to long term thinking...the 'then what happens?'


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

I think this article about fallout is pretty good, thinking as I read it, it shows trying to 'shoot down' a nuke, wether in oceans or land...if it goes off...long term, we're all screwed. 

Nuclear fallout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

Hell, people live in Hiroshima right now. Frequently Asked Questions - Radiation Effects Research Foundation


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

vt1099ace said:


> With 7 billion (and growing) population the oceans are a source of food for much of those 7 billion, If we could knock out nukes into the seas the long term residual effects on the people that rely on the oceans (may even take human generations, eating contaminated fish) needs to be a concern beyond 'let protect this group now...' What the point when you end up poisoning yourself later?
> 
> Im not for 'screw'm, that what they get for living in a city that gets nuked'...I'm trying to take get you to long term thinking...the 'then what happens?'


Ok so you are going to let millions of people die in support of your cause. Smart.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

The oceans connect the world. Bombing the ocean is like bombing the whole world, that is what he is trying to say.


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

Souled In said:


> Ok so you are going to let millions of people die in support of your cause. Smart.


that's not what I'm saying...emotionally, the idea of MAD is quite repulsive and frightening. 
That being said...
There was a certain kind of logic to _it at the time_...It's just today isn't the world of 40 years ago. Other means has to be found..the only one that I can think of that can be plausable is to physically remove them from existance, and that means eyes looking and boots on the ground....even if it means cold war era spy games and seal team 6 raids to get them....

Harsh view, yes...but I've actually been thiniking about this a long time and watchiing closely to global events....


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Ballistic MIRV technology is even worse news. Some of them while in ballistic mode are actually missiles that launch other smaller missiles - one missile can launch its multiple individual ballistic warheads, one at a time mid flight, at different targets. And one submarine launched missile might have a dozen of these smaller warheads in it.

Edit: also they are able to steer while ballistic - if you attempt to drop it in the ocean, they could possibly make it so that the missile bus changes its trajectory and launches the warheads anyway.


----------

