Posts: 17,082
Threads: 10,686
Joined: Oct 2014
C C
Dec 2, 2017 02:38 AM
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/
Posts: 1,431
Threads: 121
Joined: Sep 2014
stryder
Dec 2, 2017 02:35 PM
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.
Posts: 27
Threads: 1
Joined: Dec 2017
FluidSpaceMan
Dec 2, 2017 04:51 PM
(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.
Posts: 17,082
Threads: 10,686
Joined: Oct 2014
C C
Dec 2, 2017 05:59 PM
(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.
Posts: 5,822
Threads: 747
Joined: Oct 2014
Yazata
Dec 3, 2017 04:44 PM
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?
Posts: 27
Threads: 1
Joined: Dec 2017
FluidSpaceMan
Dec 3, 2017 07:14 PM
(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.
Posts: 2,363
Threads: 96
Joined: Nov 2016
RainbowUnicorn
Dec 5, 2017 09:11 PM
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
|