North Korea

[Scouse]

No, its not. They know the type of bomb they've tested, they know the types of missiles they can launch - these things are almost impossible to hide, the bomb they have can't fit any of their current missiles. More uncertain is a chemical or biological payload.

Disagree:

North Korea's nuclear scientists have done a good job keeping foreign observers in the dark about what types of weapons it has tested. Material vented after the nation's first nuclear test, in 2006, revealed that it was a plutonium bomb. But the tests in 2009 and again this year gave away little about the nature of the device...

...But could it actually deploy them against South Korea, Japan and the US?
This all depends on whether North Korea has succeeded in making a miniaturised device that could be deployed on its ballistic missiles, as it claimed after February's nuclear test. US officials seem to be taking the threat seriously......given that Pyongyang has yet to flight-test an intercontinental missile, the threat to the US seems remote. South Korea and Japan have more to worry about, as their cities are within the range of North Korea's No-dong missiles – and it is possible that the country has already built a device capable of being launched in this way.

But either way - I find it highly unlikely that NK will do anything.

 

[BloodOmen]

Disagree:


But either way - I find it highly unlikely that NK will do anything.

they've waited too long to do anything, plenty of subs/warships and anti missile defenses are already in place so any launch would likely be shot down.

 

[old.Tohtori]

No Dong missile. Heh.

 

[Scouse]

they've waited too long to do anything, plenty of subs/warships and anti missile defenses are already in place so any launch would likely be shot down.

Belief in missile defence systems is misplaced. We can't even reliably shoot down scud missiles. They're a joke.

And they were never going to "do" anything. Their nuclear capability will be used in the event of an invasion. They're effectively uninvadeable - like Iran wants to be.

This is a political game en route to a new round of bargaining at the UN which will see some sanctions lifted.

 

[soze]

I thought the new Dauntless class air defence ships were meant to be a fairly big step forward with this kind of thing? I am sure I heard something about it sitting off the coast of the Falklands and dropping any missile that Argentina launched?

 

[Scouse]

I thought the new Dauntless class air defence ships were meant to be a fairly big step forward with this kind of thing? I am sure I heard something about it sitting off the coast of the Falklands and dropping any missile that Argentina launched?

Every new missile defence tech we produce is a "big step forward". None of them have ever actually worked as advertised.

 

[Ctuchik]

You're thinking about HMS Dauntless?

That's a type 45 destroyer (commissioned 2009/2010) sent to the Falklands last year but as far as i know never had to fire a shot.

They claim it's as good as you say but it hasn't been verified yet.

Every new missile defence tech we produce is a "big step forward". None of them have ever actually worked as advertised.

Or never got to prove it yet.

 

[Zarjazz]

Well there have only really been two real world tests of missile defence platforms of note, both in Israel. Everyone can agree that the original Patriot system was pretty shit, less than 10% success rate against low tech scuds. But it's been more than 20 years since then and the tech has advanced a lot. If you believe the hype the new systems were 80-85% successful but as always there are those that doubt the figures - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21751766

 

[Scouse]

If you believe the hype the new systems were 80-85% successful

I don't. The Patriot was 80-85% successful until after that particular skirmish ended and we found out it was as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

From that link you posted:

Patriot's success rate, he argued, could have been less than 10%, perhaps even zero. It may actually have hit nothing.

I think it's the same for all of them...

 

[Ctuchik]

It's funny though that they can't make missiles that shoot down other missiles reliably.... Suppose it's much more fun and interesting to make missiles that kill people instead...

 

[Poag]

The only currently field tested short range/terminal missile defense system is Iron Dome

It boasts a 90% effectiveness rating against "threat" rockets. The system deciding which ones to engaged based on trajectory and probably landing site, its made to only protect certain cities/towns, rather than intercept everything.

This sort of thing is fine for conventional warheads, you bow it up, the warhead either goes off, fails, or falls to earth with a thump and a bang somewhere thats not a problem. As soon as you throw radioactive material into the mix tho, things become a lot worse. You crack the warhead or break it up? Radiation over a vast area. You destroy the missile but the warhead falls to earth and goes off? Well good going but you still failed.


The only tests of a Anti-ICBM were conducted with a SM-3 missile from a aegis destroyer in the pacific, under very controlled conditions and having a massive setup already in place, radar from OTH being sat fed back to the aegis, by the time the aegis had seen said missile itself, worked out the launch, launched, the SM-3 would be tailing the missile and would probably not have been fast enough to catch up with a terminal ICBM flight to intercept it anywhere but over land. Operation Burnt Frost for further reading.

Either way, nothing thats actually out there atm can reliably intercept a Strategic missile, let alone a ICBM. And even then it relies on solid contact or shotgun effect to destory the missile, which a fair portion of the time will leave the warhead to either spread radiation/chemicals over a wide area, or the warhead will impact somewhere random anyway and go off/shatter on impact causing a new problem.


Into opinion here
TBH, as mental as it was, the A-SAT laser was actually the best option, no time to target. Could be sure of the destruction of the boost phase which would under most conditions destroy the warhead over the enemy territory/over water.

Again thi sis just opinion and i dont have anything to backup that particular thought train....

 

[DaGaffer]

It's funny though that they can't make missiles that shoot down other missiles reliably.... Suppose it's much more fun and interesting to make missiles that kill people instead...

Its not really unusual, hitting a missile with another missile is orders of magnitude harder than hitting "the ground". From what I've read, Aegis/SM-3 seems to be the only remotely accurate anti-missile system (about 80% success rate), and its taken decades to get to that level of accuracy (and it seems there are issues about quality control depending on which navy is doing the firing).

 

[Poag]

It's funny though that they can't make missiles that shoot down other missiles reliably.... Suppose it's much more fun and interesting to make missiles that kill people instead...

Its a weird thing. In most military applications warhead development occurs quicker than armour development. Meaning new armours are generally vulnerable by the time they make it into production.

The only exception to the rule being things that most exceedingly quickly. ICBMs being one, Anti-Armour missiles being the other, there are point defense systems for tanks now which supposedly can shoot down RPGs and anti-tank missiles. However these are still in testing and development, and supposedly the US are already working on AT weapons that can defeat them with MIRV style warheads.




So Warhead > Armour ~99% of the time :/

 

[Tom]

Missile launch systems aren't exactly small. You only need to know where they are and to keep a watchful eye on them (to see if they're being fuelled) before destroying them before they launch.

 

[Shagrat]

I suspect the Americans will have a much better success rate at that, compared to hitting a missile once its launched.

They'll have satellites scrutinising bases in NK now and will just fire a tomahawk, a cruise missile or whatever and take it out before it's even launched.

 

[DaGaffer]

Missile launch systems aren't exactly small. You only need to know where they are and to keep a watchful eye on them (to see if they're being fuelled) before destroying them before they launch.

That's certainly true for the long range missiles, not so much for the mobile launched stuff (remember the scud hunts back in GW1?) That's the big problem with NK, the long range missile stuff is all a bit irrelevant when they can be time on target to Seoul and Tokyo in a few minutes. They've probably got around 5-600 missiles that can do this; not big payloads in conventional terms (500-650KG), but ample for biologicals or chemicals. Even if Aegis worked as advertised, the Americans and Japanese probably don't have enough missiles to physically stop them all. Of course once fired, NK would be bombed back to the Stone Age in about an hour.

 

[Gwadien]

If you hit a nuke mid air, it wouldn't cause a nuclear explosion, right? or would it depend how it got hit? angles and such?

 

[DaGaffer]

If you hit a nuke mid air, it wouldn't cause a nuclear explosion, right? or would it depend how it got hit? angles and such?

No, but it would still throw radioactive material all over the place.

 

[Chilly]

If you hit a nuke mid air, it wouldn't cause a nuclear explosion, right? or would it depend how it got hit? angles and such?

causing a nuke to go off is remarkably difficult. there's a whole pile of bombs in there just to trigger the main nuke. they have to be timed perfectly, blowing up a nuke with a conventional bomb is a very effective way of making it inoperable. However, gaffer points out, it'd be seriously bad news for the locals. Plutonium or uranium all over the place causing happy fun time cancer and radiation sickness.

 

[rynnor]

There are lots of counters for missile interception systems.

The simplest is just to launch a load at once - hide your nukes amongst conventional missile launches.

The systems are not amazing at multi missile interception and in the stress of real conditions you can expect a number to get through.

Next you could take out or jam radar stations being used to track your missiles.

Alternatively you can confuse radar with radar reflective chaff, lasers hate smoke n cloud etc.

Finally you could also make a missile that detects anti missile intetceptors and goes evasive - at the speeds they travel the interceptor could never react in time.

 

[Job]

The old Star Wars defence system relied on the building massive gattling guns as a last resort and probably would have been the only thing to actually stop the nuke.

 

[Poag]

The old Star Wars defence system relied on the building massive gattling guns as a last resort and probably would have been the only thing to actually stop the nuke.

This.

Theres a reason last line of defense on aircraft carriers is carried out by Phalanx systems. They are pretty damn reliable. Although....afaik.....there was only 1 missile-on-missile interception at sea. And it was a tail-on Sea Dart missile chasing an Iraqi Silkworm. It had been engaged by the Phalanx on another ship first which missed and decided to shoot at another ship instead [doh!]. Source

 

[DaGaffer]

The simplest is just to launch a load at once - hide your nukes amongst conventional missile launches.

By far the most likely option for NK, but, when they're gone, they're gone.

Next you could take out or jam radar stations being used to track your missiles.

Probably not an option for NK for several reasons; their enemies are mobile (particularly at sea) and NK is very unlikely to be able to keep its aircraft in the air for very long. I'm also guessing their ECM capabilities are miles behind the Americans. Finally, the Americans will be using satellite surveillance to track missile launches as well.

Alternatively you can confuse radar with radar reflective chaff, lasers hate smoke n cloud etc.

As above, it would only be possible for NK for a very short window before their planes are toast. Equipping that capability onto the missiles themselves is generations ahead of the SCUD-derivatives they mainly have.

Finally you could also make a missile that detects anti missile intetceptors and goes evasive - at the speeds they travel the interceptor could never react in time.

The Russians claim to have evasive ballistic missiles, but they've been building ICBMs since the fifties, I doubt NK could hack it.

 

[Embattle]

If you noticed this is why the anti missile defence system is a multilayered, the risk of missing.

The thing that does concern is the feeling that China has perhaps lost control of the leash.

 

[Aada]

Lets not forget that NK are very very low on fuel for their military due to sanctions, it would be interesting just to see how much of their military can function.

 

[Zenith]

In advance, sorry for everyone involved (bar NK). I find this kind of pseudo-high level debate over stuff we (as civilians) have generally very little clue about hilarous. I have enough "trust" in the "integrity" of the Western military forces to not let a random internet forum know about the intimate details of their missile interception systems.

 

[rynnor]

Lets not forget that NK are very very low on fuel for their military due to sanctions, it would be interesting just to see how much of their military can function.

Thats an interesting claim but only NK would know - you have to wonder how much China is supplying them quietly.

If you really want to get tinfoil hat mode you might suggest that NK is useful to China - they want more territory and war is about the only way that will happen - North Korea destabilising the area forcing countries like Japan to militarise may suit them plus NK can try to pressure the US out of the region - that the Chinese would love....

 

[rynnor]

In advance, sorry for everyone involved (bar NK). I find this kind of pseudo-high level debate over stuff we (as civilians) have generally very little clue about hilarous. I have enough "trust" in the "integrity" of the Western military forces to not let a random internet forum know about the intimate details of their missile interception systems.

A lot of it has been reported - they tout these systems pretty widely to the press but later on you find that they were far less effective than stated.

The theory of missile interception and countermeasures has been discussed since the 80s - I still remember SDI

 

[Zenith]

A lot of it has been reported - they tout these systems pretty widely to the press but later on you find that they were far less effective than stated.

The theory of missile interception and countermeasures has been discussed since the 80s - I still remember SDI

Thats my point - whats been reported havent been true. So pretty much anything stated in this thread (within the limits of common sense) could be absolute bollocks.

 

[Gwadien]

*tin foil hat*

Bet the Chinese are telling the North Koreans to threaten SK and America so America flexes its muscles and shows the firepower they have, like they did in the Cold War, so China can see what threats they'll be up against when they invade on the 20th of October 2019