In case of nuclear attack, I can imagine the knee-jerk liberals complaining
if we used a nuclear-tipped ABM to prevent one of our cities getting nuked.
They'd probably prefer we let the enemy warhead do it's job rather than us
use a nuclear detonation to stop it!
Either way, the ABM's being developed now do not have nuclear warheads -
it's too bad, really - in the early 70's we had the amazing Sprint and
Spartan ABM's, and although there weren't enough of them to stop a full-on
Soviet nuclear assault, they were still far more effective than the ABM's
we're developing now.
Of course, if a nuclear-tipped ABM intercepted a North Korean or Iranian
warhead, there would be problems with EMP in the area below the detonation.
Not so much of a problem in the early 70's, as their electronics were more
primitive (and people really didn't have computers, etc), but now.....


"Nomen Nescio" wrote in message
...
Hitting a bullet with a bullet amazingly worked in some of the recent
anti-missle tests. But, I just can't seeing the military depending on
this
"mass impact direct-hit" mode of interception in the real world.

Do you suppose that the tests were done with inert warheads just as a
concept proving exercise, but the real McCoy missles will be armed with
small atomic warheads? With a warhead effective over say, a 1/4 mile
radius, even those "near misses" would have resulted in a sure kill.

If so nuclear tipped, would the government necessarily have to keep such
information top secret both for military and political reasons. If what I
say is true, you heard it here first.