MK254
JF-Expert Member
- May 11, 2013
- 31,732
- 48,288
Kawaida huwa napenda sana kupitia pitia maswali na majibu kwenye tovuti ya www.quora.com maana kuna wataalam wa kila taaluma humo huwa wanajadili mambo mengi sana yanayohusu dunia.
Sasa kuna hili swali la kizushi, ikatokea leo kombora likarushwa kuelekea Marekani, vipi kama wana uwezo wa kuliona kwa mbali na kulipiga likiwa huko huko kabla kufikia anga yao. Majibu yenyewe yapo ya kusisimua na ya kujifunza kitu.
If a nuclear missile were launched towards the U.S., what is the current military protocol to prevent it from hitting the U.S.?
15 Answers
Dan Holliday, I am an American
39.2k Views • Upvoted by Andy Duffell, Ex-air force armourer • Mike Holovacs, Served in USAF 2000-2007, Munitions Systems crewchief. Two Southwest Asia deployments and one domes… • Ian McCullough, Born in the USA
Dan is a Most Viewed Writer in United States Armed Forces.
There are none that are reliable enough to intercept them all from any of the leading nuclear powers. Joshua Engel answered a question last week about a frog that is poison if consumed by most animals. He pointed out that the best defense is to prevent yourself from getting eaten in the first place (bright colors as a warning), but barring that, there's the guarantee that if you do get eaten, you'll take those bastards down with you.
With the USA there's the guarantee that if you strike this nation, your nation will cease to exist within the time that it takes you to order and eat a Wendy's Biggie "Dave's Hot & Juicy" double cheeseburger with fries and a frosty. That is a promise that the USA has made sure cannot be prevented from happening. The US has enough nuclear weapons dispersed around the planet that it is currently impossible for even the entirety of humanity, launching a coordinated strike, to prevent even a reasonable fraction of them from reaching their destination, let alone any one nation, even if it were China or Russia.
That guarantee is the single most powerful defense (and it exists for Russia, China, the UK and France as well). There's nothing like the possibility of extermination to make you think twice before pushing a button.
Written May 19, 2014 • View Upvotes
Upvote238Downvote
Comments17+
Share2
John Geare, ROTC Paper: Annihilation, the Final Principle of War
624k Views • Upvoted by Igor Markov, Lived on the East Coast, on the West Coast and in the Midwest
John is a Most Viewed Writer in Missiles.
If a nuclear missile were launched towards the U.S., what is the current military protocol to prevent it from hitting the U.S.?
A nuclear missile? Just ONE?
The protocol is "layered defense." This means 3 different intercept opportunities:
Not all missiles are ICBMs which travel thousands of miles from one land mass to another; some are medium range, some are short range, some are "cruise" missiles. The layered defense is an attempt to counteract any of these.
Chance of intercept?
Ten years ago: not good. Today: probable, but not certain.
Hope that helps.
EDIT: Let me see if I can address a few of the many comments and questions received since my original answer, above.
We live in interesting times, my friends.
Updated Oct 30 • View Upvotes
Upvote920Downvote
Comments21+
Share14
Musolĕ Kmb
6.1k Views
Like most nations, the US has a missile defence system that intercept the path of a ballistic missile (that may have a nuclear payload), commonly these missiles are called Intercontinental ballistic missiles - ICBMs. The Dept of Defense(DOD) has a section called the Missile Defense Agency or MDA that is directly responsible for developing a "layered defense against ICBMs". It's a 'R&D and acquisition agency within DOD that develops, tests and field/deploy integrated Bllistic Missile Defense System (BMDS).
Below is a screenshot pulled from their website:
The system’s architecture includes:
If a nuclear missile were launched towards the U.S., what is the current military protocol to prevent it from hitting the U.S.? - Quora
Sasa kuna hili swali la kizushi, ikatokea leo kombora likarushwa kuelekea Marekani, vipi kama wana uwezo wa kuliona kwa mbali na kulipiga likiwa huko huko kabla kufikia anga yao. Majibu yenyewe yapo ya kusisimua na ya kujifunza kitu.
If a nuclear missile were launched towards the U.S., what is the current military protocol to prevent it from hitting the U.S.?
15 Answers
Dan Holliday, I am an American39.2k Views • Upvoted by Andy Duffell, Ex-air force armourer • Mike Holovacs, Served in USAF 2000-2007, Munitions Systems crewchief. Two Southwest Asia deployments and one domes… • Ian McCullough, Born in the USA
Dan is a Most Viewed Writer in United States Armed Forces.
There are none that are reliable enough to intercept them all from any of the leading nuclear powers. Joshua Engel answered a question last week about a frog that is poison if consumed by most animals. He pointed out that the best defense is to prevent yourself from getting eaten in the first place (bright colors as a warning), but barring that, there's the guarantee that if you do get eaten, you'll take those bastards down with you.
With the USA there's the guarantee that if you strike this nation, your nation will cease to exist within the time that it takes you to order and eat a Wendy's Biggie "Dave's Hot & Juicy" double cheeseburger with fries and a frosty. That is a promise that the USA has made sure cannot be prevented from happening. The US has enough nuclear weapons dispersed around the planet that it is currently impossible for even the entirety of humanity, launching a coordinated strike, to prevent even a reasonable fraction of them from reaching their destination, let alone any one nation, even if it were China or Russia.
That guarantee is the single most powerful defense (and it exists for Russia, China, the UK and France as well). There's nothing like the possibility of extermination to make you think twice before pushing a button.
Written May 19, 2014 • View Upvotes
Upvote238Downvote
Comments17+
Share2
John Geare, ROTC Paper: Annihilation, the Final Principle of War
624k Views • Upvoted by Igor Markov, Lived on the East Coast, on the West Coast and in the Midwest
John is a Most Viewed Writer in Missiles.
If a nuclear missile were launched towards the U.S., what is the current military protocol to prevent it from hitting the U.S.?
A nuclear missile? Just ONE?
The protocol is "layered defense." This means 3 different intercept opportunities:
- Boost phase: from missile launch until sub-orbital path reached. May be difficult to detect, if launched from a (submerged) submarine.
- Sub-orbital phase: the arc of the missile while it is in or near "outer space." Easily detected with ground and satellite radar and IR sensors. But may be difficult to track if the missile carries multiple independently targeted warheads and/or dispenses decoys.
- Terminal re-entry: in the atmosphere, on the way to target. Easily and accurately tracked, but accuracy of intercept is key, because the missile will impact in a minute, or less.
Not all missiles are ICBMs which travel thousands of miles from one land mass to another; some are medium range, some are short range, some are "cruise" missiles. The layered defense is an attempt to counteract any of these.
Chance of intercept?
Ten years ago: not good. Today: probable, but not certain.
Hope that helps.
EDIT: Let me see if I can address a few of the many comments and questions received since my original answer, above.
- Someone asked if the kill would be by explosion or by impact, alone ("kinetic"). With respect to an ICBM or equivalent high speed missile, given the high velocities involved, impact is sufficient. The target won't necessarily be blown to bits, but it certainly will be broken apart and knocked off course. The space occupied by explosives will carry something much more valuable, instead - guidance and control electronics.
But a cruise missile is different. Traveling at subsonic speeds, just off the ground, and capable of maneuver, a more appropriate countermeasure might be one or more intercept missiles similar to those used to shoot down planes. Because the target is slower, so also may be the interceptor; speed is exchanged for accuracy and more time for adjustment. But the loss of kinetic force requires an explosion for a reliable kill.
I should also mention that some interceptors use a "shot gun" attack as the target is a approached, to blanket the target and surrounding area with hundreds of high speed projectiles. - Someone else said that even if the attacking missile is knocked down, the warhead could or would still explode; perhaps not where intended, but bad news even so. Facially, this argument makes some sense and indeed, no possibility must be counted out. However, perhaps counter-intuitively, the triggering mechanisms of warheads are quite delicate things, and a malfunction or loss of the mechanism usually results in a "dead soldier." For example, 4 atomic bombs fell on our own soil and did not explode. Dropping them is not enough.
- One person said there was no protocol, except for "MAD," or "mutual assured destruction." That, however, is a scenario which applies only where hundreds, or maybe thousands of warheads are involved, a virtual can of gasoline on which no one dare toss a match.
But the OP referred to "a" missile, which I assume means just a solitary shot. That scenario is, I believe, the most likely, either by accident or the design of an outlier such as N. Korea, acting perhaps at the behest of Iran or certain radicalized Islamic elements (maybe both). In the event of an accident, a tit-for-tat exchange would serve no purpose, but someone would get a big bill for damage. - But what of an intentional attack? The United States would face a very difficult situation, here. We would sustain the effect of a single bomb, which most likely would be launched from a submarine along our west coast and wreak havoc in LA, San Francisco, Seattle/Tacoma, perhaps Alaska. Realistically, there could be only 2 sources: Iran or N. Korea. The agreement with Iran NOT to produce a nuke, for whatever comfort it may give, ignores development and deployment of missile delivery systems. NK already HAS at least a few bombs. Thus, Iran has capable delivery systems, and NK has the warheads. The two countries are friendly with one another, and both dislike the US. A logical conclusion is that if the attack comes, then it will be the result of a collaboration between the two, albeit that denials will run strong.
Will the US respond in kind? MAYBE. If we DO, that literally means we poke back with one bomb for either Tehran or Pyongyang, or otherwise one for each. Assuming we choose the more generous option, what will we have accomplished? A great deal of damage, certainly; but by no means utter destruction. Both enemies will still be capable of a fight. And there may well be other subs lurking on our coasts, ready to deliver a second, maybe a third, round. On the other hand, if our retaliation is massive, we will have knocked out the opposition's ability to function and ruined their economies. At the same time, we will have created an international crisis which may be characterized as radioactive in more ways than one.
Bad as the radioactivity may be, the power vacuum would be worse. Who shall step in, to fill it? The Russians and the Chinese, almost certainly.
Yet, there is a third option, being a non-nuclear full scale retaliation which, while devastating, would exhaust, or nearly exhaust, the magazine and probably require deployment of ground forces along two fronts, and at massive scale. What with one or more of our own cities having been turned to ash, and a huge military campaign along 2 fronts, at the door steps of powerful adversaries, we would be in quite a pickle.
Consequently, a 4th option -a limited military response, within the context of a political policy initiative- must be regarded as plausible -perhaps even appropriate. In this scenario, we destroy the enemies' capacity to make war or defend themselves strategically - lots of cruise missiles and sea launched ICBMs carrying conventional warheads; the pin-point elimination of critical defense infrastructure, "smart" bombing of government and command and control facilities, the destruction of naval and air assets, wide distribution of MOAB weapons north of the DMZ and deployment of troops and ground artillery assets just south of it, anticipating an invasion from the north.
The "politics" in this response refers to a demonstration of restraint to the allies of our attackers, as well as our own allies. We are certainly expected to defend ourselves, yet at the same time our reaction is characterized as much by what we did not do, as by what we did, or could have done. After the party is over, it lies with the friends of our enemies to clean up the mess. And maybe -just maybe- the leadership of the defeated states will be replaced with more reasonable people; it would be to the interest of the bear and the dragon to make it so. - How likely is it that just one nuke will be launched at us to "see what will happen?" Hard to say; but the folks who hope for our defeat and humiliation watch what we do in the ongoing crisis situations to estimate what we might do in the future. With every occasion in which we appear to wilt or withdraw, we invite more tests. When Obama's "red line" was crossed by Bashar al-Assad, and we failed to deliver the promised response, and when we signed the no-nuke agreement with Iran, we may have telegraphed a message inviting more of the same challenges; or, at least, our adversaries may have taken it that way.
We live in interesting times, my friends.
Updated Oct 30 • View Upvotes
Upvote920Downvote
Comments21+
Share14
Musolĕ Kmb
6.1k Views
Like most nations, the US has a missile defence system that intercept the path of a ballistic missile (that may have a nuclear payload), commonly these missiles are called Intercontinental ballistic missiles - ICBMs. The Dept of Defense(DOD) has a section called the Missile Defense Agency or MDA that is directly responsible for developing a "layered defense against ICBMs". It's a 'R&D and acquisition agency within DOD that develops, tests and field/deploy integrated Bllistic Missile Defense System (BMDS).
Below is a screenshot pulled from their website:
The system’s architecture includes:
- networked sensors (including space-based) and ground- and sea-based radars for target detection and tracking;
- ground- and sea-based interceptor missiles for destroying a ballistic missile using either the force of a direct collision, called “hit-to-kill” technology, or an explosive blast fragmentation warhead;
- and a command, control, battle management, and communications network providing the operational commanders with the needed links between the sensors and interceptor missiles.
If a nuclear missile were launched towards the U.S., what is the current military protocol to prevent it from hitting the U.S.? - Quora
