Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For every offensive weapon created in history there has been a defensive entity created to stop it. Take for instance a battle tank. There are guns that can take one out but the they just put more armor on the tank and then a bigger gun is created thank can penetrate that thicker armor and it goes on and on. But no defense yet against an nuclear weapon. Of course there are missiles that can take down another missile but I mean something that when a nuclear bomb goes of it neutralizes it resulting in no explosion. There must be a way.
Of course there are missiles that can take down another missile but I mean something that when a nuclear bomb goes of it neutralizes it resulting in no explosion. There must be a way.
There isn't. It's the nature of nuclear weapons. Study the mechanics of nuclear explosions. In theory, the only effect that can be negated in whole or in part is the Electro-Magnetic Pulse. I'm not sure what there is to debate here.
And such systems have been tested and found to somewhat effective.
The problem is that defending against incoming ICBMs is much more difficult and costly than building enough ICBMs to overwhelm the defense. If the system knocks out 95% of the incoming missiles in a mass attack, that's simply not good enough. The 5% reaching their targets would still devastate any nation.
Lots of extremely smart people who know way more about nuclear physics than you or I do have been pondering this question for years. So far, the answer is NO.
For every offensive weapon created in history there has been a defensive entity created to stop it. Take for instance a battle tank. There are guns that can take one out but the they just put more armor on the tank and then a bigger gun is created thank can penetrate that thicker armor and it goes on and on. But no defense yet against an nuclear weapon. Of course there are missiles that can take down another missile but I mean something that when a nuclear bomb goes of it neutralizes it resulting in no explosion. There must be a way.
SURE!
But one probably needs a nuclear bomb to do it, to counter that blast.
There many idioms regarding a lone warrior in the filed.
Traditional warfare is where Tank gets taken out by planes and food soldiers. So a tank needs air support and foot soldier support to be an effective weapon on the ground (enemies foot soldiers and tanks). Similarly, air support. US and Russia are competing. Russian thinks they are winning... Funny... Basically when a nuclear weapon delivered via bomber or rocket, there is an air defense shield to take it out. When a nuclear weapon is smuggled in as in terrorism, that has no real defense.
Nuclear weapons give out a "sent" so they can be monitored to make sure they are not in smuggled int US.
We live in the world of stealth planes and drones, so i am not sure I understand how there are no stealth nuclear delivery systems.
often, tanks and plains are expensive and room to support the crue add to that expense. Size matters, small bird size object might not even be visible by radars.... But yes, Putin is researching better tanks and US is researching drones and robotics.
For every offensive weapon created in history there has been a defensive entity created to stop it. Take for instance a battle tank. There are guns that can take one out but the they just put more armor on the tank and then a bigger gun is created thank can penetrate that thicker armor and it goes on and on. But no defense yet against an nuclear weapon.
And there are guns that can destroy a nuclear weapon.
Quote:
Of course there are missiles that can take down another missile but I mean something that when a nuclear bomb goes of it neutralizes it resulting in no explosion. There must be a way.
That doesn't make sense. Once a nuclear bomb 'goes of[f]', there's an explosion. Just like once a HEAT round from an M1 explodes, there's no putting that genie back in the bottle.
You don't defend against explosives by making them un-explode - you defend against them, nuclear or conventional, by destroying their platforms or delivery systems or the explosive itself before it explodes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
is it possible to make a defensive shield against a nuclear weapon
