Anti Air craft fire can shoot down ICBMs???
Moderator: Defcon moderators
- bert_the_turtle
- level5
- Posts: 4795
- Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:11 pm
- Location: Cologne
- Contact:
-
- level2
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:50 am
Okay, I know of one way to make it impossible for the AA to shoot down nukes. A house rule requiring the player to immediately change their silo to nuke mode upon reaching DEFCON 1 and then a supporting house rule prohibiting the player from firing if there is only one nuke left in the silo. Obviously honor system based and most realistic in the 1961 Cold War mod back when shooting down nuke missiles was impossible.
Re: Anti Air craft fire can shoot down ICBMs???
FedRebel wrote:It's not, missiles are extremely easy to intercept
I know this is a years old post... but I just happened to see it and couldn't resist but feel the urge to slap the person who wrote such a preposturous statement.
Missiles are NOT easy to intercept, simply because of their speed. A SAM missile (or any other explosive) kills with the shrpanel from the explosion, not the explosion itself (unless you were right next to the bomb when it went off). An ICBM simply travels so fast that it literally outruns the shrapnel from the missile.
And so unless the SAM explodes right head on the ICBM, the ICBM will not die simply because it travels too fast.
Re: Anti Air craft fire can shoot down ICBMs???
Korean wrote:FedRebel wrote:It's not, missiles are extremely easy to intercept
I know this is a years old post... but I just happened to see it and couldn't resist but feel the urge to slap the person who wrote such a preposturous statement.
Missiles are NOT easy to intercept, simply because of their speed. A SAM missile (or any other explosive) kills with the shrpanel from the explosion, not the explosion itself (unless you were right next to the bomb when it went off). An ICBM simply travels so fast that it literally outruns the shrapnel from the missile.
And so unless the SAM explodes right head on the ICBM, the ICBM will not die simply because it travels too fast.
I didn't know that. Thanks for post.
You should interpret "AA fire" as ABMs, which is what I usually call it.
Here are a couple interesting references. The first is from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, "The Protection Paradox," which shows just how seriously nuclear planners took the ABM installation around Moscow. It provides historical data on an earlier system, but the estimates for a hypothetical strike carried out in 1989 (after the Moscow system had been upgraded) called for 102 ICBMs and SLBMs totalling 204 warheads just for the two radars, four Gorgon sites, and four Gazelle sites. You can certainly kill ICBMs.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94030290/The-Protection-Paradox
The other link takes you to an unofficial site about the history of the Stanley Mickelsen Safeguard Complex in North Dakota, which was the only operational ABM site in the U.S.during the Cold War (and it was only operational for several months).
http://srmsc.org/
Here are a couple interesting references. The first is from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, "The Protection Paradox," which shows just how seriously nuclear planners took the ABM installation around Moscow. It provides historical data on an earlier system, but the estimates for a hypothetical strike carried out in 1989 (after the Moscow system had been upgraded) called for 102 ICBMs and SLBMs totalling 204 warheads just for the two radars, four Gorgon sites, and four Gazelle sites. You can certainly kill ICBMs.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94030290/The-Protection-Paradox
The other link takes you to an unofficial site about the history of the Stanley Mickelsen Safeguard Complex in North Dakota, which was the only operational ABM site in the U.S.during the Cold War (and it was only operational for several months).
http://srmsc.org/
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests