US defence shield may use nuclear missiles in outer space

Scruff

A rather ominous development in the U.S. missile defence shield:
(taken from Irish Independent )

THE US is studying a plan to use nuclear warheads in its missile defence shield, a proposal rejected in the 1970s as dangerous and technically difficult.

The disclosure of the nuclear interceptor study, promoted by Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, is likely to increase fears America is lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons.

The plan would involve nuclear warheads exploding some 60 miles above ground as they intercepted incoming enemy missiles. The nuclear interceptors would not have to be so accurate as the current non-nuclear interceptors and would be able to wipe out everything in the area.

Recent missile defence tests showed America has become good at hitting a small object in space so long as it knows exactly where the object is at what time. But the shield programme with its non-nuclear interceptors has not found a way of coping with decoys or with submunitions, dozens of small exploding bomblets that could contain biological weapons.


Non-nuclear interceptors destroy an incoming missile by force of direct contact. A nuclear-tipped interceptor, on the other hand, could send a large explosion up into space which could hit everything being fired at America. It would deal with the problem of decoy tactics an enemy may use to confuse the interceptor. But the nuclear warhead would have to be very large, effectively to wipe out biologically loaded bomblets.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, President Bush gave warning that America could one day be hit by missiles sent by terrorist organisations. He said such missiles could be loaded with biological weapons.


Enthusiasm for the missile defence programme increased after the attacks on New York and Washington. In December Mr Bush cited the argument of a potential terrorist attack to withdraw the US from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia despite objections from Moscow.


(The Times, London)

While there is no doubt that a nuclear interceptor would be more effecitve at knocking out an incoming enemy missile i wouldn't like the idea of a nuclear detonation goind off above my head and then not only having any radioactive or biological debris landing but also the fallout from the detonation.

But while the probability of such an event happening is remote, what is more worrying is this part of the article :

The disclosure of the nuclear interceptor study, promoted by Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, is likely to increase fears America is lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons.

as there have already been reports of the U.S. investigating the creation of smaller battlefield nucks.

Draco

I believe it would also contravene a treaty from the 60's banning nukes in space. But we've seen how little Bush cares for treaties. And Bush is talking through his arse when he says terrorist would use missiles with biologial warhead. A hi ace van is far more effective...

Lemming

Also consider that most of the world, with the exception of (surprise surprise) the US and israel, is against the "militarisation" of space.

A more serious question needs to be asked .....

what if these nuke interceptor missiles miss their target? When and where do they detonate?

The US also suddenly has a nuke missle delivery system in space as a "defense" system, that can, I'm sure, be canabalised for offensive purposes also.

There's also the issue of maintenance of these orbital platforms, along with the issue of "space junk" and the possibility of catastrophic damage to a platform in the event of a collision.

The prospect of having nukes sitting above my head in orbit does not sit well with me.

seamus

Originally posted by Draco
I believe it would also contravene a treaty from the 60's banning nukes in space. But we've seen how little Bush cares for treaties. And Bush is talking through his arse when he says terrorist would use missiles with biologial warhead. A hi ace van is far more effective...

Cheaper too. I don't think Ireland's budget would stretch to many laser guided missiles of any type, so I can't see how Bush expects most terrorist organisations to.

:rolleyes:
How many more years office has he left?

Scruff

Originally posted by seamus


Cheaper too. I don't think Ireland's budget would stretch to many laser guided missiles of any type

Actually we do have a number of laser guided missiles! They're used in the RBS-70 sam system. mind you we only have about 12 of these (afaik) to defend the whole country. And 1 radar to control them all.

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
The US also suddenly has a nuke missle delivery system in space as a "defense" system, that can, I'm sure, be canabalised for offensive purposes also.

There's also the issue of maintenance of these orbital platforms, along with the issue of "space junk" and the possibility of catastrophic damage to a platform in the event of a collision.

The prospect of having nukes sitting above my head in orbit does not sit well with me.

Just as well they werent talking about orbital platforms then.

They were talking about ground-based missiles being launched against low-orbit incoming ballistic missiles, detonating in space (60 miles up). In other words, rather than needing a skin-to-skin kill (or as near as bedamned) using conventional explosive or kinetic interceptors, you use a nuke to kill a large area. What the explosion doesnt get, the EMP pulse will.

Your other question (what happens if it misses) is almost valid - its not designed to hit - its designed to explode in low-orbit. The more correct question is what happens if it doesnt explode.

Of course, please bear in mind that these weapons would ostensibly be for taking out incoming ballistic missiles. If someone has fired an ICBM on the US, regardless of what it is tipped with, I would honestly say that small, relatively clean nuclear explosions in low orbit and the associated debris fallout are the least of our worries.

jc

Xterminator

Quit talking through yer a*ses!

A nuke missle, that crashes will not detonate!
(A non nuke might)!
It might spread fissionable material over an area, but even the warheads are of such high standard fission material, they are not overley dangerous, unlike the cheaper 'dirty' warheads. this material could be cleaqned up easily and cheaply.

If there was a space collision, this could not set off a nuclear reaction either. Space debris from all the satelite junk up there, is no more or less dangerous.

Considering the damage a biological or nuclear explosion would have, it makes sense to do all you can to prevent such an event occuring.

Finally if you are going to intercept a biological payload with a conventional weapon, the fallout might wipe out a small nation.
IF you destoy it with a nuke, in space, chances are the payload will be totally destroyed, and renderd inert.

X

Lemming

Just a thought ....

a nuke goes off in low-orbit. EMP will needless to say, occur. What happens to all those lovely little satellites?

Scruff

more than likely become lovely bits of junk.

Lemming

Originally posted by Scruff
more than likely become lovely bits of junk.

Well, in keeping with the current phrasing ...

"lovely"!!!!
And Xterminator, if a non-nuke can explode if it de-orbits and crashes, what's to say that a nuke wont?? Last time I checked, missiles (in general) were designed to blow up upon contact with something????

seamus

Originally posted by Lemming

And Xterminator, if a non-nuke can explode if it de-orbits and crashes, what's to say that a nuke wont?? Last time I checked, missiles (in general) were designed to blow up upon contact with something????

Depends on the nuke. The ones dropped on hiroshima & nagasaki were designed to exlpode on impact. Of course warheads can also be designed to detonate on a timer. The whole point of nuke missiles is that they can't explode until armed - ie they explode on impact, not because of impact. An unarmed nuke may be dropped from a plane and it won't go off. The same can't be said for a conventional bomb, due to it being packed with explosive material.

No doubt the nukes as planned for orbit would be on a timer (of sorts) detonated by automation once it reaches a prticular point/height/range, and would be 'deactivateable' in the case where it fails to detonate and makes its way earthwards.

Lemming

Originally posted by seamus


Depends on the nuke. The ones dropped on hiroshima & nagasaki were designed to exlpode on impact. Of course warheads can also be designed to detonate on a timer. The whole point of nuke missiles is that they can't explode until armed - ie they explode on impact, not because of impact. An unarmed nuke may be dropped from a plane and it won't go off. The same can't be said for a conventional bomb, due to it being packed with explosive material.

No doubt the nukes as planned for orbit would be on a timer (of sorts) detonated by automation once it reaches a prticular point/height/range, and would be 'deactivateable' in the case where it fails to detonate and makes its way earthwards.

Oops .. I should have mentioned "detonate on impact once armed".

But to pick up on what you've said, if it fails to detonate, doesn't it stand to reason that something seriously wrong has happened internally, and therefore trusting the nuke to "deactivate" or signal to be deactivated seem a VERY dodgy prospect indeed??

Xterminator

Originally posted by Lemming


Oops .. I should have mentioned "detonate on impact once armed".

But to pick up on what you've said, if it fails to detonate, doesn't it stand to reason that something seriously wrong has happened internally, and therefore trusting the nuke to "deactivate" or signal to be deactivated seem a VERY dodgy prospect indeed??

No,

A nuke cannot explode accidentally, because it needs to be triggered to reach critical mass before it will explode.
Unless this trigger is an impact trigger, eg drives the rod into the core on impact, it will not explode if it crashes or is shot down.

Now these missiles will be designed to explode when it gets to the closest point to the target, likely a coded radio signal of some sort.

X

Kraken

i think we are overlooking something here. look at ireland we are smak back in the middle of all this. if anything were to go wrong we would be the worst off. and if all went right we would still be worse off. (depending on what direction the missles were lauched towords) if the radiation etc wouldnt kill us some of the other stuff would. but in theory the bio side of it is out of the question as the radiation would kill it or many be it would mutate it to something worse?

seamus

Originally posted by Kraken
but in theory the bio side of it is out of the question as the radiation would kill it or many be it would mutate it to something worse?

No it wouldn't be the radiation that would be destroy any biochemical agents in a missile - it would be the shear heat of the explosion. I assume they would be attempting to explode the nuke within a fairly short radius of the incoming missile, effectively vapourising everything - metal, explosives and biochemical agents. Apparently, the epicentre of an atomic blast is about as hot as the outer layer of the sun, just at detonation. Quite Hot.

Kraken

you are assuming that the missle would even hit near the bio type thingys. heat can kill bacteria if hot enought but what if the missle or a group of missles with a seperation distance of a good bit so that at least some will make it through goes over head usa fire nuke nuke get x number and send debri flying debri hits x amount of missles with no effect but whith 1 i may cause a leak there by spreading the bacteria into the air. it is a possiblity that cant be denied.

Fidelis

Not very surprising considering quite a few countries use nuclear depth charges and anti-submarine nuclear missiles/torpedoes. They are quite capable, crushing the hull of any submarine within 8km meant that pin-point accuracy was not an issue. I'm surprised that it wasn't implemented during the Cold War.

Who's going to stop it happening anyway? You? Me? Batman has a better chance.

Scruff

I think basically that the U.S. don't care if they destroy a missile totally or just damage it enough to stop it reaching terra firma on the U.S. They're thinking of using it just because they're realising that because the missile may have dummy or multiple warheads that the odds of hitting the right one and\or all of them are quite bad. The nuke is the best way of just getting everything in the one blow.

And if an innocent foreign country gets hit with the fallout or what ever as a result of the missile shield, whether its nuke or not, its just acceptable collateral damage as long as the U. S. of A. is a. o. k.

But one of the other issues raised is America is shifting the level of conflict at which it is willing to introduce nuclear weapons. It’s gone from doomsday situation to missile interception and is moving towards battlefield weapons.

If you have heard the controversy over the use of depleted uranium in cannon rounds and the storm it created over people getting leukaemia or whatever from these spent rounds, what do they think will be the effects of detonation a full-blown nuke in the atmosphere or on a battlefield??

damn it! my spelling has gone to pot today!!

Fidelis

It will probably get to a Syndicate Wars stage where they'll be using low-yield nuclear hand grenades.

Xterminator

Originally posted by Scruff
I think basically that the U.S. don't care if they destroy a missile totally or just damage it enough to stop it reaching terra firma on the U.S. They're thinking of using it just because they're realising that because the missile may have dummy or multiple warheads that the odds of hitting the right one and\or all of them are quite bad. The nuke is the best way of just getting everything in the one blow.

And if an innocent foreign country gets hit with the fallout or what ever as a result of the missile shield, whether its nuke or not, its just acceptable collateral damage as long as the U. S. of A. is a. o. k.

Yeh sure, whatevere.
It would be the US's fault that a biological agent was spilled over Ireland, not the fault of whoever fired the missile. Not.

Hello?

The collateral damege, whether it be ovwer the US , Ocean, or other territorys will be caused by the power firing the missile!

Whoops you got in the way of my bullet, im going to sue you for dirtying it with your blood.


X

JustHalf

Originally posted by Lemming
Also consider that most of the world, with the exception of (surprise surprise) the US and israel, is against the "militarisation" of space.

Show me where Israel said they want nukes in space.

JustHalf

Originally posted by seamus
The ones dropped on hiroshima & nagasaki were designed to exlpode on impact.

Nagasaki nuke was an airburst.

Scruff

from New Scientist

The power of nuclear explosives means such a weapon would not need to score a direct hit to destroy incoming enemy warheads. But the effects of the blast could also knock out civilian satellites and electric power networks - as well as arms-control treaties.

The US deployed its Safeguard missile defence in the mid 1970s, equipped with nuclear warheads. But it was never tested in space or against live targets. It was officially declared operational on 1 October 1975 and deactivated just four months later.

Bioweapons would be tough targets. "It would take considerably more than a megaton" to kill most anthrax spores, says Richard Garwin, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

High-altitude nuclear blasts also produce intense pulses of electromagnetic radiation, which can induce power surges and damage sensitive electronics. When America detonated a 1.4 megaton bomb 400 km above the Pacific in 1962, it knocked out streets lights and telephone services in Hawaii, 1300 km away.

Critical military satellites are shielded to protect them from such effects, but civilian satellites and power grids are unprotected. Five years ago, a top Pentagon official, George Ullrich, warned Congress that a single high-altitude nuclear blast "could result in serious problems for the entire US civil and commercial infrastructure."

Testing a nuclear interceptor would violate a 1963 treaty that bans tests in space or the atmosphere and would almost certainly provoke wide international criticism.

Its too late in the working day to get into a flame spat with ye Xterminator, must go to the pub. Mayber later when i'm flaming myself but i will say:
see the bit about detonating a 1.4 megaton bomb 400km over the pacific?? imagine that going off 100km over your head.

you take care now, ye hear!?


/scruff turns off computer , slams door and runs to the pub

Xterminator

Mines a vodka 'n diet coke!


X

bonkey

Originally posted by Fidelis
Not very surprising considering quite a few countries use nuclear depth charges and anti-submarine nuclear missiles/torpedoes. They are quite capable, crushing the hull of any submarine within 8km meant that pin-point accuracy was not an issue.

No-one uses nuclear depth charges. They may have them, or have designed them, but they have never been used - not even in testing to my knowledge. I'd also be curious as to how they would deploy, because whatever fires the depth-charge or torpedo would be destroyed by the blast as well - unless we're talking about an air-drop.

At the end of the day, we are talking about a defence screen. Key word : defence. It is used to counter incoming threats of a specific nature. If bio or nuclear ICBMs are incoming on the US, then some radioactive or biological fallout is, quite honestly, the least of anyone's worries.

And before anyone starts yammering on about "but it could be used offensively", I would ask why bother? The US has offensive nuclear capability if it wants it, and will most likely seek to expand that capability with "battlefield nukes" as well. This is worrying - proliferating nuclear weaponry in an offensive capability. Defensive capability.....I'm not too worried to be honest.

Besides, unless Bush gets succeeded by a slew of warmongers, it is highly likely that many of these projects will be shelved by more nuclear-conscious governments.

jc

Shinji

No-one uses nuclear depth charges. They may have them, or have designed them, but they have never been used - not even in testing to my knowledge

I *think* the French tested one quite a long time ago and got bawled out of it by every other power on the planet for it.

And before anyone starts yammering on about "but it could be used offensively", I would ask why bother? The US has offensive nuclear capability if it wants it

I'm not convinced that "Oh well, he's got a handgun, he may as well have an automatic rifle" is a good line to take on this. The militarisation of space is a very, very bad thing indeed, and it's worth noting that if you can shoot down missiles in low earth orbit, you can also shoot down satellites, orbiters or stations. You know, like those ones China is so keen to build.

Besides, unless Bush gets succeeded by a slew of warmongers, it is highly likely that many of these projects will be shelved by more nuclear-conscious governments.

Right now, I don't honestly think there's much hope of Bush being succeeded by a pacifist, or indeed anyone with a clue. In fact, I wouldn't wager much on Bush being succeeded by anyone other than Bush.

Fidelis

Originally posted by bonkey
I'd also be curious as to how they would deploy, because whatever fires the depth-charge or torpedo would be destroyed by the blast as well - unless we're talking about an air-drop

I don't understand what you mean by saying "whatever fires the depth-charge or torpedo would be destroyed by the blast". I don't mean to be patronising here but ship launched missiles would undoubtedly have a range far superior to the missiles destructive area e.g. 8km. If you mean what I think you mean (i.e. that a submarine is 2km off a destroyer) then obviously it wouldn't be used. In such a case, I can onlu assume that conventional warheads would be used.

I would have to agree with Shinji on this matter, space-based nukes worry me more than the vanilla nukes.

bonkey

Originally posted by Shinji
I'm not convinced that "Oh well, he's got a handgun, he may as well have an automatic rifle" is a good line to take on this.

I wouldne be either, except that this is not a good analogy. The US have their ICBMs, their cruise missiles, their stealth bombers, and whatever else. They already have every offensive gun on the planet. What they now want is a gun which shoots down incoming bullets. Objecting because its another gun is a bit pointless.

The militarisation of space is a very, very bad thing indeed, and it's worth noting that if you can shoot down missiles in low earth orbit, you can also shoot down satellites, orbiters or stations. You know, like those ones China is so keen to build.

You do not need nuclear weapons to shoot down or destroy orbital platforms. They are quite literally sitting ducks. Any delivery system capable of low-earth orbit can take down a satellite. Nuclear-tipping it would be silly. Hell, you could probably take down a satellite with an Arianne rocket loaded with some good ol' TNT.


As for Fidelis' comment about

"I don't understand what you mean by saying "whatever fires the depth-charge or torpedo would be destroyed by the blast". I don't mean to be patronising here but ship launched missiles would undoubtedly have a range far superior to the missiles destructive area e.g. 8km. If you mean what I think you mean (i.e. that a submarine is 2km off a destroyer) then obviously it wouldn't be used. In such a case, I can onlu assume that conventional warheads would be used.

Depth-charges are dropped from a ship, fall vertically down, and explode. The ship dropping them would be destroyed in a nuiclear explosion, unless (as I pointed out) we're talking about an air-drop, because you aint gonna be 8km away by the time it stops dropping. Depth-charges are non-directed munitions. An underwater bomb, basically.

Having checked the range of torps, I'm surprised its so large (30+km),so yes, they could be used. I'm just not sure how practical theyd be.

space-based nukes worry me more than the vanilla nukes.

They are not space-based nukes. They are nukes which would be fired from a land-based platform, which would explode in low-orbit. Why would they explode in low-orbit? Because there would be one or more ultra-high velocity incoming missiles travelling in low-orbit as well. Space has already been mlitarised - it has been since the 60s. What Bush is talking about is how to protect against that prior militarisation.

Its the age old military see-saw. First you make a better gun (ICBM), then you figure out how to stop said gun from hurting you. A highly effective way of stopping an ICBM is a nuclear-tipped interceptor.

I still dont see the problem. Its a system which is designed to be used only in response to the launching of a WMD, and which is designed to remove that threat. The tech has pretty much no other purpose. The US already have better delivery systems should it want to send nukes at someone.

jc

Fidelis

Originally posted by bonkey
Having checked the range of torps, I'm surprised its so large (30+km),so yes, they could be used. I'm just not sure how practical theyd be

A submarine could take out a carrier group with a single torpedo.

A highly effective way of stopping an ICBM is a nuclear-tipped interceptor

A highly effective way of stopping an invading army is a stand-off nuke. It's not very practical though. The consequences of multiple nuclear explosions in the earths atmosphere, whether be it lower or upper, would be catastrophic. Personally, I'd prefer if the U.S. didn't detonate incoming ICBM's over Ireland, but hey, it's their perogative.

A while ago, I remember seeing footage of a U.S. Army laser-based weapon shooting down a drone of some sort. Whatever about shooting down airplanes/missiles, does anyone know if it was developed to intercept orbital weapons?

bonkey

Originally posted by Fidelis
A submarine could take out a carrier group with a single torpedo.

Agreed, but at the moment, a submarine can take out a carrier group with a single nuclear-tipped sea-launched cruise missile, fired from much further away, with even less chance of interception (torps can be heard from a long way away - cruise are very stealthy). Thats what I meant by being unsure about the practicality.....

A highly effective way of stopping an invading army is a stand-off nuke. It's not very practical though.

Hasnt been practical - but the US is talking about "battlefield nukes" recently, which would be far more worrying.

The consequences of multiple nuclear explosions in the earths atmosphere, whether be it lower or upper, would be catastrophic.

Sure. But what are the alternatives? I see two :

1) The US allow themselves to be hit, and do nothing in return

2) The US return fire in kind.

At worst, one tactical interception missile here is taking the place of one incoming and one return nuclear missile. Possibly/probably several incoming and several return. Its still preferable - just not ideal.

Of course, I am assuming that having intercepted incoming nuclear threats, the US would not return fire with nuclear technology.

Personally, I'd prefer if the U.S. didn't detonate incoming ICBM's over Ireland, but hey, it's their perogative.

I'd prefer if no-one had ICBMs at all, but again - its their perogative (sadly).

A while ago, I remember seeing footage of a U.S. Army laser-based weapon shooting down a drone of some sort. Whatever about shooting down airplanes/missiles, does anyone know if it was developed to intercept orbital weapons?

The tech I think you're talking about was for supersonic short- and medium-range missiles, and its being developed as a truck-portable system in conjunction with Israel (!).

In theory, it could be used against incoming ballistics, but there are several problems to be overcome, even assuming the basic system works :

1) Power - the more atmosphere you punch through, the more power you need to pump out.

2) Atmospheric Attenuation (I think) : As you heat the atmosphere passing through it, the beam actually gets distorted, making pinpoint targetting problematic at the range needed for low-orbit incomings. The more power you use, the worse this problem is. Taken with point 1, this is currently an unsurmounted problem.

3) Line of Sight : obvious Missiles can hit things over the horizon - lasers cannot.

4) Speed : Incoming ballistics are moving very very fast. Yes, I know the laser is travelling at the speed of light, but the targetting mechanism needs to be incredibly advanced to lock on and hold on target to the level of accuracy needed. This problem has been somewhat solved through use of kinetic defense missiles (which go for skin-skin kills).

At the end of the day, I dont think that nuclear weapons are the best solution, but they are the most technically feasible at the present time, which is a major plus for anyone developing them, and at the end of the day, I think a lot of this is nothing but posturing from the US to justify increased military spending on domestic companies to develop new tech.

jc



jc

Rabies

well......

in my opinion Bush will prob do another job like the Hirosima (is that how i spell it?)

Bush is too trigger happy...

all he wants to do is blow some one up. dont get me wrong, i agree with his tactics in afganistan. but as soon as he came to power he has gone crazy. its like as if he was born with a gun in his hand...

i think Bush is the first person from a democratic country that is after world domination

the sooner Bush's time in office is gone the better..... not i'm not sure if Al Gore would have done much better...



:cool: Rabies :cool: