Trump v Kim

[Viking]

Thinking of this more abstractly might be helpful. This is an example of a technological race. Unless theoretical or practical physical limits are hit during the development of more advanced technology, it is entirely possible for a more resourceful country to pull far ahead of a less resourceful one in the race.

On the topic of decoys more specifically, any decoy will per definition differ from the target nuclear weapon in some way. Can you use any such distinct property to tell apart your target from the decoys? Possibly; if your target is the only thing that is radioactive, a relevant sensor might be able detect this directly or indirectly via the electromagnetic spectrum.

Also, earth-observing satellites need not orbit the Earth, they may remain in a Lagrange point (like DSCOVR), orbit the Moon or similar.

I would say it is plausible for a country like the US to stay adequately ahead in such a race with North Korea, until (presumably) its regime collapses at some point in the, potentially distant, future. It may require a lot of resources dedicated to shield systems, however.

[Husar]

Thinking of this more abstractly might be helpful. This is an example of a technological race. Unless theoretical or practical physical limits are hit during the development of more advanced technology, it is entirely possible for a more resourceful country to pull far ahead of a less resourceful one in the race.

On the topic of decoys more specifically, any decoy will per definition differ from the target nuclear weapon in some way. Can you use any such distinct property to tell apart your target from the decoys? Possibly; if your target is the only thing that is radioactive, a relevant sensor might be able detect this directly or indirectly via the electromagnetic spectrum.

Clearly you'd be an invaluable employee for a US defense contractor as you solved all their issues in a few sentences. I suggest you apply for a job with one as they clearly haven't thought of any of your simple solutions until now.

[Viking]

Clearly you'd be an invaluable employee for a US defense contractor as you solved all their issues in a few sentences. I suggest you apply for a job with one as they clearly haven't thought of any of your simple solutions until now.

There's no mention of 'easy' in my post. That said, I do hope you will write me a letter of reference when I apply.

[Husar]

There's no mention of 'easy' in my post. That said, I do hope you will write me a letter of reference when I apply.

Not in my post either if we're going to be pedantic.

As for potential solutions to problems in the future, they tend not to be helpful if the problems become acute before the solutions arrive.
If you told someone in 1250 that the solution to Polio is a vaccine, before they even had the technical means to produce the vaccine, I would say that's nice, but if their child got Polio the next day that would hardly save it.

[Montmorency]

Re-entry phase interception is viable only with a relatively limited number of targets, I concur. This limited character would be true of an NK attack, however. Unless and until the NK's build up a force capable of lobbing hundreds of warheads and even more decoys at the same time and basic target window.

This presumes that there are enough resources to pre-position ABM systems in the appropriate target spots. Re-entry phase interception would not be workable if out of position.


The better choice WOULD be a boost phase intercept, with the ABMs striking downward from satellite launch platforms prior to burnout and warhead separation (once they develop MIRV capability). This approach would, of course, mean that a spaced base system would need to be in place in advance of such an attack and such a system would be politically problematic given the loose definition of WMDs (the deployment of which to orbit is prohibited by the Space Treaty).

I'm hopeful that our Vandenberg shuttles have been deploying a robust orbital ABM system for some time....but I have heard no such rumors.

Ignoring the less-advanced and lower-range missiles targeting South Korea, Japan, and others in the Pacific - with even a handful of ICBMs, one has to assume something will be detonating over the American mainland. The odds of how optimal for the North the altitudes of detonation, are probably unknowable for us. Clearly the performance of defense systems would have to be much better than we've heard of in tests so far.

Revealing space-based missiles in the event of a North Korean launch would be a disaster. Not only would we be shown to have fully violated international laws, our adversaries would have a window before we could re-arm the satellites - at which point they could emplace their counterparts, among other things. And we would deserve all the repercussions.

As nukes are weapons of terror and not of war, even the very good scenario of a few thousand casualties and a few temporary evacuations owing to fallout would shatter our psyche more than any multiples of 9/11. You can bet on martial law, at least.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ignoring the less-advanced and lower-range missiles targeting South Korea, Japan, and others in the Pacific - with even a handful of ICBMs, one has to assume something will be detonating over the American mainland. The odds of how optimal for the North the altitudes of detonation, are probably unknowable for us. Clearly the performance of defense systems would have to be much better than we've heard of in tests so far.

Revealing space-based missiles in the event of a North Korean launch would be a disaster. Not only would we be shown to have fully violated international laws, our adversaries would have a window before we could re-arm the satellites - at which point they could emplace their counterparts, among other things. And we would deserve all the repercussions.

As nukes are weapons of terror and not of war, even the very good scenario of a few thousand casualties and a few temporary evacuations owing to fallout would shatter our psyche more than any multiples of 9/11. You can bet on martial law, at least.

In the sense that perfection is hard to expect from any defense and any "leaker"would almost certainly blot out a substantial portion of some urban/suburban area, I assure you that I am not saying we should blithely ignore the risk and assume we are impervious.''

Moreover, deploying ABM satellites using conventional warheads would not constitute a breach of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. Despite such a deployment being within the letter of the treaty's strictures, there are a sizeable number of folks here on the Third Rock who view anything military in space aside from recon/comm satellites as an act of evil. This would be the cause of the political problems noted above.

If we do have such a system deployed, it is unlikely that all of our defensive assets would be used absent a mass attack. I don't think anybody in our military is silly enough to deploy a single satellite with a pair of missiles and call it a defense. The US military does the tech thing pretty well.

You are correct as to the "terror" qualities of nuclear weapons. The stigma built up around them is out of proportion to the capability of a single warhead to do damage. They are powerful weapons with a lingering effect that continues to be deadly for some time after use. But those killed are no more nor less dead then someone hacked down by a Hellfire missile or who stumble accidentally onto a landmine planted 75 years ago that has somehow stayed volatile. It is the terror survivors and witnesses associate with its use that is the greatest "threat" posed. This has significant political ramifications and I agree would trend toward hyperbolic responses rather than measured ones.

[rory_20_uk]

Could North Korea not just fire decoys - very difficult to find the "real" ones when there aren't any. Then do you try to shoot the whole lot down?

Blasting hundreds of millions of dollars of military hardware (even one patriot missile is $1 million) every time there's a plausible threat would be very irritating at the least... and of course if the USA stops shooting at them, then perhaps next time there might be a real one or two in there. It is an insane strategy... but then Lil Kim doesn't seem to be adverse to such things.