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.
We are not that good at intercepting missiles. Easy during a test because you are expecting it and where it comes from, real life not so much.
Correct. People seem to be under the misconception that missiles are easy to shoot down, most are coming in, when you try shoot them down, most will coming at greater than Mach 5. Not an easy feat to pull off even when you know where re-entry is. I am not against air defensive weapons, that can intercept some and this reduce damages, but I would suggest to never put too much faith in the technology, there is too much at stake.
Why spend millions to shoot down everything they send up. We already waste trillions in the ME area of the world. Plus whatever he sends up never hits it's target anyways.
We are not that good at intercepting missiles. Easy during a test because you are expecting it and where it comes from, real life not so much.
Yup.
It's like shooting down a BB going at supersonic speeds with another BB.
And the interceptor has to be launched very quickly after the first BB is spotted.
We have the interceptors, but under real battle conditions, I think the success rate would only be 50% at the greatest for a one to one intercept.
It's not the equipment as much as the human factor that would slow the response, I think.
Japan has warning equipment, but when the Korean missile went over their northernmost island, most folks didn't have the time to duck because of the natural confusion that happened.
An incoming meteor could have set off the warning devices, or some other fast moving object, like space junk falling out of orbit. Most of the time delay came from determining what was setting the sirens off. Other time delays would happen getting the interceptors ready for launching.
I can't remember how long it took the missile to fly over Japan, but it could not have been more than a few minutes. And the interceptors are built for speed, so they don't have a lot of range like a larger missile.
But numbers would count. If 2 or more interceptors were launched at the same missile, the strike rate may be higher. The interceptors probably aren't designed to hit the other like a bullet; I think they are more like a shotgun shell, sending out a spray. At those speeds only a couple of pellets or whatever would do the job.
The design is top secret. The warheads on the interceptors could be explosive or not, and could even be very small nukes, at least theoretically. Proximity would be the key to good interception- a nudge would be enough to down an incoming missile at those speeds if properly executed at the fringe of outer space.
We need to target Kim, not missiles.
Start evacuating Seoul So Korea and pull all Americans out of the country. China will get very serious about cooperating and might even take Kim out themselves.
We are not that good at intercepting missiles. Easy during a test because you are expecting it and where it comes from, real life not so much.
I don't understand. From South Korea we are not more than a few minutes from any launch pad that Kim can launch from. The missiles are traveling at a very slow speed in the boost phase. From South Korea we just aim several Patriots and have one or all of them take Kim's missile out. He may scream and holler "Act of war, act of war" but that's just a tantrum. What do we care? We just say, "Well, looked like it was headed for Guam."
We had that technology (or at least it was being developed) way back in the 70s and 80s. It was limited via treaty, unfortunately. If we had the ability to knock every incoming missile out of the sky, we wouldn't really need to worry about folks like the Pillsbury Doughboy, his model rockets, or his starving army.
Our jets can fire other missiles and devices, and for all anyone knows, there may be satellites in orbit that have defensive capability to strike from above.
And in the end game scenario, we can always launch our own ICBMs. North Korea has no high speed interception ability.l
The fact that a nuclear first strike does not end our power to retaliate in massive force is probably the best interceptor of all.
A hydrogen bomb's destruction is massive, but the N. Korean missile guidance systems are new, and mostly untested. A first strike from N. Korea could miss the target, and the damage in human life could not be as enormous in a miss. If it fell into the ocean, it would possibly be next to nothing in terms of the loss of human life.
Ours are all well tested, and experience counts. Our strike rate would probably be much higher, and they know it.
We are not that good at intercepting missiles. Easy during a test because you are expecting it and where it comes from, real life not so much.
Exactly. It is like shooting down a bullet with a bullet.
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.
