ABM missiles nuclear armed?

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.

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 09:49:30 -0600, "Joseph S. Powell, III"
wrote:

If the said nuke ground bursed on Yellowstone lakes bed and it was a
big enough nuke, the possible resulting secondry bang would be
sufficient to not need to worry about EMP affecting electronics in
America, or the 'knee-jerk liberals'.

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.



Christopher
+++++++++++
"Never take anything for granted."

Benjamin Disraeli

In article ,
"Joseph S. Powell, III" wrote:

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.....

Not much of a problem because the ABM warhead is so small little EMP
would be generated. The reason to use nuclear is that only nuclear can
destroy the enemy warhead before it can be detonated by the salvage fuse,

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

Nick Hull wrote:

The reason to use nuclear is that only nuclear can destroy the enemy warhead
before it can be detonated by the salvage fuse,

That's utter nonsense. There's no possible salvage fuse that can
cover any reasonable range of 'damaged but not destroyed' without
interfering with the operation of the main fusing system.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

If the said nuke ground bursed on Yellowstone lakes bed and it was a
big enough nuke, the possible resulting secondry bang would be
sufficient to not need to worry about EMP affecting electronics in
America, or the 'knee-jerk liberal

All of it matters little.

Easier for terrorists to set off a nuclear nbomb in downtown NY or other large
city.no reason to air lift it in. just ship it to the US as freight with a GPS
set off to detonate it when it arrives at ground zero
..
..
End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts....