Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

The odds of stopping North Korean nuclear missiles

#1
C C Offline
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/...e-defense/

EXCERPT: [...] They are easy to spot on their way up but hard to intercept because this “boost phase” is very short — less than five minutes for an ICBM. No existing defense system works that quickly. But several ambitious ideas are being developed [...]

“If North Korea sent six ICBM warheads at the United States and we got five of them, you’d say, ‘Hey, five out of six, not bad,’ ” said Bruce W. MacDonald, former assistant director for national security at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. “But if you ended up losing Seattle . . . you’d still feel pretty bad even though it was over 80 percent effective. That’s what you’re dealing with.”

The bottom line is that the GMD may help deter North Korea, MacDonald said, because the system might work. But relying on it to keep us safe is a major risk....

MORE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/...e-defense/
Reply
#2
stryder Offline
The test they have been doing seem to be more about Elevation rather than travel. while on the one hand the physics used to gain altitude can also imply the amount of energy is available to fly one over distance, I would be more concerned with "Sleeping Satellites". Basically if they get to the point of launching warheads into space, they can just act as sleepers until they want to drop them out of orbit on any unsuspecting population. This negates tracking a missile being fired over distance and would obviously break international law in regards to space weaponry.
Reply
#3
FluidSpaceMan Offline
(Dec 2, 2017 02:35 PM)stryder Wrote: The test they have been doing seem to be more about Elevation rather than travel.  while on the one hand the physics used to gain altitude can also imply the amount of energy is available to fly one over distance, I would be more concerned with "Sleeping Satellites".  Basically if they get to the point of launching warheads into space, they can just act as sleepers until they want to drop them out of orbit on any unsuspecting population.  This negates tracking a missile being fired over distance and would obviously break international law in regards to space weaponry.

I doubt it.  The USAF has shot down a satellite from a fighter jet.  This is what prompted China to destroy their own weather satellite in 2007, creating a huge cloud of orbital debris and garnering international outrage.  (Ours was already about to burn up, but posed a threat to the environment due to a large hydrazine tank.) Satellites are a lot easier to bring down that ICBMs.
Reply
#4
C C Offline
(Dec 2, 2017 04:51 PM)FluidSpaceMan Wrote:
(Dec 2, 2017 02:35 PM)stryder Wrote: The test they have been doing seem to be more about Elevation rather than travel.  while on the one hand the physics used to gain altitude can also imply the amount of energy is available to fly one over distance, I would be more concerned with "Sleeping Satellites".  Basically if they get to the point of launching warheads into space, they can just act as sleepers until they want to drop them out of orbit on any unsuspecting population.  This negates tracking a missile being fired over distance and would obviously break international law in regards to space weaponry.

I doubt it.  The USAF has shot down a satellite from a fighter jet.  This is what prompted China to destroy their own weather satellite in 2007, creating a huge cloud of orbital debris and garnering international outrage.  (Ours was already about to burn up, but posed a threat to the environment due to a large hydrazine tank.) Satellites are a lot easier to bring down that ICBMs.

Welcome to SciVillage, FSM.
Reply
#5
Yazata Offline
I'd like to see ships with interceptors/lasers/whatever brought near NK (in the sea of Japan?) to attack the missiles rising above NK during their boost phase, when they are vulnerable. We could practice using their missile tests like the recent one. They test an ICBM, we test our means of shooting it down.

Two more questions are:

1. How accurate would the NK missiles be? Firing them straight up and down might help them achieve range, but what about the necessary guidance systems? If they fire at US cities, what probability would they have of hitting anywhere close?

2. How many operational missiles would they be likely to have?
Reply
#6
FluidSpaceMan Offline
(Dec 3, 2017 04:44 PM)Yazata Wrote: I'd like to see ships with interceptors/lasers/whatever brought near NK (in the sea of Japan?) to attack the missiles rising above NK during their boost phase, when they are vulnerable. We could practice using their missile tests like the recent one. They test an ICBM, we test our means of shooting it down.

Two more questions are:

1. How accurate would the NK missiles be? Firing them straight up and down might help them achieve range, but what about the necessary guidance systems? If they fire at US cities, what probability would they have of hitting anywhere close?  

2. How many operational missiles would they be likely to have?
I'm sure there are plenty of assets in the area.  A few years back, rumors existed that one of their early boost failures was because the airborne laser shot it down.  (There was a 747 converted to carry a powerful chemical laser.)  That aircraft has been mothballed which probably means that there is something better available.

One reason to fire the missiles straight up in a test would be to keep them in NK airspace.  Once they leave it they would be fair game.  It might also be to prevent watchers from making decent accuracy calculations.  With a nuke you only have to get close.  If you live in a major city you might actually be safer, if you live near a major city, watch out.

There is probably information on the number of operational missiles, my guess would be very few.  NK is a small country, even with support from China which they may have received, it is amazing they have gotten as far as they have.  It's not just missile count but the number of launch sites and distributed command and control infrastructure all of which is expensive to build and maintain.
Reply
#7
RainbowUnicorn Offline
Quote:Cathay Pacific crew saw North Korean missile from plane, airline says

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/04/asia/n...index.html

Quote:Hong Kong (CNN)The crew of a Cathay Pacific flight from San Francisco to Hong Kong saw what they believed was a North Korean ballistic missile re-entering the Earth's atmosphere last Wednesday, the airline said Monday.
Cathay said in a statement that it had been in contact with relevant authorities, industry bodies and other airlines about what was seen from Cathay Pacific flight 893, and at the moment there were no plans to change flight routes.
"Though the flight was far from the event location, the crew advised Japan ATC (Air Traffic Control) according to procedures. Operation remained normal and was not affected," the statement said.
"We remain alert and review the situation as it evolves."

ooops that was close
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article Why alarm over Russia’s hypersonic missiles in Ukraine is misplaced (data evaluation) C C 1 78 Apr 4, 2023 02:48 AM
Last Post: Kornee
  Statistical analysis reveals odds of life evolving on alien worlds C C 0 132 May 21, 2020 04:49 AM
Last Post: C C
  The odds of you being alive Magical Realist 2 368 Feb 25, 2018 04:39 AM
Last Post: Syne
  What are the odds? The Flip Side of Optimism About Life on Other Planets C C 0 760 Aug 12, 2015 10:57 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)