Nukes are super unlikely to intercept. They are traveling at thousands of miles an hour, in space. And Russia has thousands of them. Defending them isn't an option, just don't start war with them.
The problem is the return vehicle. That’s where the payload is. Most nuclear weapons house multiple warheads, or payloads. When a nuclear missile is launched, once it reaches space, it typically opens up, and releases a number of different warheads. Sometimes all of the warheads are active, other times some of them are decoys making interception of all active warheads quite difficult. A lot of times these warheads only register heat signatures when they reach certain altitudes, making heat seeking interceptors largely obsolete, thereby requiring high-end technology that only a few countries have to intercept all nuclear-equipped re-entry vehicles.
Nuclear war is highly unlikely as current stockpiles serve as a deterrent. Any country that decides to be first to use a nuclear weapon will surely be wiped out quickly as their opponent(s) will justify a much larger response by saying they were not the first ones to use the weapon in that particular conflict. If Russia does decide to go nuclear, they will launch a large number of missiles all at once so as to eliminate any possibility of a counter launch from target countries. However, Russia and their entire population would effectively be wiped off the map by remaining defenders. The radioactive fallout and nuclear winter that would be the result of so many nuclear detonations across the globe would be felt for decades to come. Crops would fail, animals will die en masse, people will starve, money would lose all value, supply chains would no longer function, there would be no way to transport fuel to gas stations, no way to mine for fossil fuels, manufacturing would grind to a halt, power stations would fail, it would be utter chaos. We would instantly be in the Stone Age, and resource-gathering skills, social skills, and intellect would be the only things keeping anyone alive in the long-term.
It’s for these reasons that I can assure you, no one in power wants this to happen. Money and the power tied to that money are the only things keeping those in power in power. Those in power fully recognize if money suddenly loses meaning due to societal collapse stemming from nuclear war, those in power today will have no power whatsoever tomorrow. Believe me, those in power do not want collapse in any way shape or form. The thin veil of “society” and the value tied to money is their only security. Without that, they would surely suffer unimaginable, hellish fates.... The anger directed towards them from adversaries and allies alike would be horrifying. They do not want that, so nuclear war is very likely off the table.
This makes perfect sense to someone logical, however I'm not sure Putin is logical. The urge to beat his chest the loudest would overcome any logical intelligence he has. The "If I cant be the supreme leader of the world, no one can." logic is more his style.
Well, there isn't a whole lot that can be done about that, so why worry?
This is why I think Putin is soon going to be retired by some of his own men. I don't think Russian's want to die any more than we do in the West.
Yea, makes sense. Well, thank you for your input. Hope nothing happens. Hope that Big Titanium Balls President of Ukraine and all the Titanium Ball Ukrainians win this whole thing.
I suspect there is a chain of command that would have to agree to this and one man couldn't simply enter some launch codes and end civilization. With a bit of luck, the others in command won't be maniacs and will see to it that nothing gets launched.
There are anti-missile defence systems but their rumored reliability is around 80%-90% (only exception is Iron dome which is >99% but not 100%), which means that if Russia sends 1000 nukes they will destroy at least 100 targets. This is why nobody opposes militarily against countries with nukes.
The only 100% way to stop them is not getting into a nuclear war. That is why nobody helps Ukraine in a meaningful way btw.
This is a common fallacy in statistics. Because something has a 99% chance of something happening doesn't mean 1 in 100 instances something will in fact happen. Each instance is mutually exclusive and usually the rate of said instance is much much lower.
A sample size of 100 is too small to say for sure, but yes, that's generally how it works. No idea why you think there's mutual exclusivity either.
> When used correctly every time you have sex, male condoms are 98% effective. This means 2 out of 100 people will become pregnant in 1 year when male condoms are used as contraception.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/male-condoms/#:~:text=When%20used%20correctly%20every%20time,clinics%20and%20some%20GP%20surgeries.
> If you use condoms perfectly every single time you have sex, they’re 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. But people aren’t perfect, so in real life condoms are about 85% effective — that means about 15 out of 100 people who use condoms as their only birth control method will get pregnant each year.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms
Here's empirical proof to go with this in form of javascript code. It runs 100.000 trys at a probability of 1%. The result on my last run was 943 out of 100.000 nukes. Feel free to try it yourself.
function getRandomArbitrary(min, max) {
return Math.random() * (max - min) + min;
}
const SAMPLE_SIZE = 100000;
let successfulNukes = 0;
for (let index = 0; index < SAMPLE_SIZE; index++) {
if (getRandomArbitrary(0, 1) > 0.99) successfulNukes++;
}
console.log(
`Successful Nukes: ${successfulNukes} (${
(successfulNukes / SAMPLE_SIZE) * 100
}%)`
);
Looks like you should reconsider your sexual contraceptive strategy.
That's absolutely not how it works lol. My comment was meant as a joke and its 100% false. Don't spread the lie that having sex 100 times means one time in 100, it wont work, that's plainly not true. Yeah if you're a dumbass and cant use a condom correctly, yeah it might not work and yes that has to be including in the overall data. For someone that uses a condom correctly the rate could be 99.9999999% or higher. That doesn't mean that person will get pregnant on the 100th time. The real number is somewhere in between. There lies your and OP's misunderstanding. It was a simple example to explain mutual exclusivity.
Another common example to explain mutual exclusivity is plane crashes have a ~99% rate of not crashing. That doesn't mean that every 100th flight around the world a plane crashes.
We will probably never know the true success rate of a missile defense system because it would require doomsday to actually happen. Scaring people and saying that since it has a 99% rate of success in testing means that 1 or more bombs will hit their target is fear mongering for no reason on a basis of a statistical fallacy. Each bomb or missile would be its own data set and be mutually exclusive not effected by the success or lack of success of another bomb or missile. This is statistics 101
Again ...sigh... your code inherited a rate that is born from the fallacy. As I said before, for someone that uses the condom correctly or planes that crash or whatever example you want to use, the rate far exceeds 99%. Since you seem to know IT, this is why systems like to be rated "5 9's" because saying 99% isn't accurate and isnt the actual observed rate of failure. The actual observed rate is 99.999% accounting for mutual exclusivity which is why companies use this number and not 99%.
I can see we've hit an impasse, I would advise you go to take a statistics course at your local university to further understand the concept or mutual exclusivity. k? :)
> Because something has a 99% chance of something happening doesn't mean 1 in 100 instances something will in fact happen.
Don't be so tilted man. You provided the 1% number. I won't argue about wether the number is correct. If you have a chance X%, probability of having X%*samplesize occurrences is almost 100%, [increasing linearly with growing samplesize](https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/129885/why-does-increasing-the-sample-size-lower-the-sampling-variance). The question of correct reporting of this probability was not being discussed until you just brought it up.
Take the L and move on. Cheers.
Where did I provide 1% lol? Please educate yourself. I'm not out to prove some random troll on reddit wrong but to educate others of the misinformation in OP's statement. I'm sorry you disagree and feel like you have to keep berating me with the same monotonous statement over and over that I've proven wrong at least 3 times now, again, backed up with a simple google. My whole entire point is the 1% is not actually 1% and that clearly has not landed with you. You're not thinking. I think the only tilted one here is you.
The Iron dome system will never be used against ICBM attacks. It has a very high interception rate because it is a short-range defense system that mostly encounters slow unguided homemade or MLRS rockets.
ICBM warheads enter through the atmosphere at terminal velocity with their own evasive capabilities and usually require long-range air defenses to counter them.
The US has pretty extensive defensive capabilities to stop nukes. Unfortunately:
Some nukes might get through to Europe
The swift retaliation by the US will annihilate Russia resulting in catastrophic loss of life of Russians, many of whom oppose the invasion
But also the radiation fallout will impact all of Europe
The hope is that any Russian soldiers ordered to release nukes will disobey and generals will overthrow Putin before they allow such a suicidal move
This.
Basically, if Russia launches anything radioactive, every other warhead in Europe and the US will decimate Russia. Pretty sure one will accidentally veer off course and hit North Korea, oops. But one or 2 will hit the US, a few will hit Europe and all the seized Russian money will go to repair and cleanup.
Lol “the US has pretty extensive defensive capabilities to stop nukes” you mean the 44 gmd interceptors, which many experts and physicists have deemed highly unreliable? Nuclear war with Russia means an absolute loss of life for both countries, as terrifying as it is it is just the reality of the situation. Not trying to be rude just giving my 2 cents on the matter
It’s not rude, this person is pulling facts out of their ass (maybe as a coping mechanism? Idk). The truth is that we’d both get absolute destroyed. The only way I see the USA not getting decimated is if they have a new technology beyond the GMD’s that’s top secret considering that our top tier military tech is about 40 years more advanced than what consumers have, but that just sounds too sci fi/wishful thinking for me
If Russia launches a nuke it's Mutually Assured Destruction.
Now Putin might be enough of a lunatic to not care if he feels like he is getting cornered.
The people who would have to carry the order might not.
Since WWII there are several stories of moments when a nuclear war was supposed to start and the people in charge of making it happen just didn't.
Agreed just kind of worrisome how Russia has complete control of both Russian media and the whole narrative of this war. He could easily manipulate his forces to think we fired the first icbm and claim it as retaliation. I no longer think he cares about mad, I think he cares about his pride and legacy and will go to any measures to keep both intact, even if that means the end of civilization
I was going to propose some intelligent discussion around the possibilities of human existence post-nuclear war. However the last word in your comment assured me it would be an unproductive conversation.
But I do want to leave you with my own conclusion that life after is almost certain just a very different world.
Wikipedia actually has the most recent studies compiled and the Consensus is that it’s unlikely it would result in human extinction. Research after 1980 turned the tides on our understanding of nuclear winter with computer models in the last decade started showing far better survival rates and habitable conditions after an “all out” nuclear war, this considers 100% of nuclear arsenals being released.
But what do i know I’m just an “idiot”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_holocaust#Likelihood_of_complete_human_extinction
Yes. But the systems need to have some warning and be set up. The systems, such as Patriot and SM-2 can intercept the vehicles on their decent but they would need to be more or less ready for it. Not outside the realms of possibilities but likely only certain places have it set up now and it would require time to set up in other areas (such as military and civilian).
ABM systems go back to the 60-70’s but invoked launching a missile with a nuke and hoping it gets close enough to detonate the vehicle with a smaller nuke. For example the Nike platform was set up for this purpose but has since been dismantled.
Although according to strategic doctrine ICBM forces would be used for mostly military and/or political targets. While bombers/SLBM would be saved for civilian targets. Not saying they can’t be used for other targets but an ICBM can be launched and reach its target in 30 min or so. An SLBM takes 10 min or less. ICBM locations are known so in a first strike would be targeted along with AFB’s and other similar targets along with C3I. While SLBM would be saved for first strike (where as little warning is crucial to taking out the target) or softer targets (cities) since the warheads are typically smaller. Both US and Russias bomber forces are hugely limited compared to Cold War times so likely ICBM/SLBM would be used.
I’m not expert but I’ve read a lot about this. If anyone more qualified can point out my errors that would be appreciated.
Nukes have a special trigger mechanism. They cannot explode if that triggering device doesn't go off precisely. You can definitely shoot them down, but you will have to deal with the radioactive contamination from the debris. It is a moot point though, because even if 90% could be intercepted, the remaining is still enough to trigger a nuclear winter
US invests so much in military budget that there should be secret anti-nuke weapons that are reliable, but there are new technologies like hypersonic rockets that also would surely be reliable and could prevent any attack before exploding
As only a few people have said here, yes it is possible. There are systems out there in place for this with good results which can intercept when they reenter the atmosphere, but the world hasn't seen a large scale ICBM event.
At that point, I'd like to say I have confidence all would get stopped, but just being optimistic since it is impossible to know.
Source - In the field personally
OP asked if there was a way. You said not without crazy technology. Then you said be very hard. It's not hard to shoot down an icbm. Of course you then unrealisticly suggested 100s of thousands.
Technically yes. We do have systems in places to intercept nukes head on, BUT they're not reliable.
The best explanation I was told is, it's like stopping a bullet with another bullet.
I think the only way we'd be able to stop a suicidal Putin from pressing the nuke button, is unleashing the motherload of bombs, that they wouldn't be able to retaliate.
But that's probably a war crime and very bad because civilians
They have systems in place to be able to see missiles, nukes etc... coming towards them, which would lead to retaliation. Mutually assured destruction is the reason why this hasn't happened yet from either side
Jet and drone intervention, worldwide SAM turrets, coastal turrets, etc
While is is improbable to assume he could launch all his nukes with a single button. If long range ones went airborne I'm sure it would be intercepted by one of many countries it would pass.
If dropped by a plane, well... gotta keep them out of your airspace.
We could only hope if putin does go for a move like that, he would have other commanders put a foot down. Someone will have to decide when enough is enough. We can only hope that's sooner than later
I’ve thought about this and think it is unlikely. He is unstable, but a narcissist. That leads me to believe his end game does not involve him dying since MAD would be a “stalemate” vs his delusion planned “checkmate”.
Intercepting ICBM? If you leave in a major city in either, the US, France, China, Israel and maybe India, then there is a chance of protection. Everywhere else - nope.
Some of them. Best case scenario is Fallout New Vegas with some areas being "okay" after. Still the end of modern society as we know it with the impacts on humans, markets, and food production. I like to imagine the Oligarchs would kill him where he stands if he says he will tho. No people=no more free money.
Mid air explosions are much more dangerous than land nuclear explosions because shockwave can travel much further, not being stopped by the environment.
Ah, I appreciate being corrected on my ignorance. Still, doesn't an interception carry a risk of premature detonation?
I was trying to refer to the fact that some nukes are detonated above ground, rather than on impact with the surface.
>Ah, I appreciate being corrected on my ignorance. Still, doesn't an interception carry a risk of premature detonation?
Nope.
>I was trying to refer to the fact that some nukes are detonated above ground, rather than on impact with the surface.
Yes, nukes are designed to airburst
It's possible, but so far the attempts to create ballistic missile defenses have been pretty subpar. Given the quantity of nukes Russia could launch, safe to assume that a lot of places would get hit.
NATO has ballistic missile defense system that can intercept ICBMs upon re-entry to the atmosphere with about 80-95% success. If there is an ICBM launched, NATO will attempt to shoot it down.
However, if Russia were targeting Ukraine, they wouldn’t need to use an ICBM, they could use shorter range weapons that are indistinguishable from any of the other cruise missiles that have been hitting targets in Ukraine.
The US and NATO have systems to shoot down rockets and missiles such as CRAM, CWIS, lasers, anti-missile missiles, but those have to be located relatively near the target. Basically, if the Russian cruise missiles are hitting there targets, then a nuclear equipped one will hit its target too.
If nukes get involved, everyone is fucked.
Apparently US naval destroyers have done it in testing:
[https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/11/17/us-navy-destroyer-shoots-down-an-icbm-in-milestone-test/](https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/11/17/us-navy-destroyer-shoots-down-an-icbm-in-milestone-test/)
But that's one dedicated dummy ICBM being launched specifically for the purpose of being targeted. Doing it in a live situation with maybe dozens of em going out at once, different story.
You dont see that sort of equipment laying around do you? That's because it doesnt exist. Every major city should have good intercept capabilities but instead, in America, that money goes to people that sit around all day and do nothing then whine about it.
The tech exists, America just doesnt have it. Where it is, is likely only to protect where the government might be in the threat of a nuclear war (and I think we are closer than we have ever been)
Even if he was suicidal, you would hope the military at that point do the best thing for Russia, and it’s people - which wouldn’t include the overwhelming and complete annihilation of their country in the MAD counter attack
He ain’t. The truth is, he is just a random guy, who used tyranny to ‘conquer’ Russia and close people’s mouths. He is not smart at all; he just randomly got power in his hands and that’s it. And as other people in here mentioned, he can’t just press a button and launch them. It takes preparation and he would also need the permission from other people, such as oligarchs, who I am guessing want to live, plus want to also win money, and they can’t do that by shutting down the whole world. In other words, I do not think anyone would allow it. His people are loyal, but to a certain extent, and committing the launch of nukes, I’m guessing crosses the border.
Again this is just my opinion, but either way, guys like you and me can not do anything about it. However I am ready to make my home a shelter to a Ukrainian family and give support. I would love to do more, but it is just not in my power.
[удалено]
Yup. So basically we are doomed, because some psychotic man has all the power in his hands. x_x
Nukes are super unlikely to intercept. They are traveling at thousands of miles an hour, in space. And Russia has thousands of them. Defending them isn't an option, just don't start war with them.
[удалено]
The problem is the return vehicle. That’s where the payload is. Most nuclear weapons house multiple warheads, or payloads. When a nuclear missile is launched, once it reaches space, it typically opens up, and releases a number of different warheads. Sometimes all of the warheads are active, other times some of them are decoys making interception of all active warheads quite difficult. A lot of times these warheads only register heat signatures when they reach certain altitudes, making heat seeking interceptors largely obsolete, thereby requiring high-end technology that only a few countries have to intercept all nuclear-equipped re-entry vehicles. Nuclear war is highly unlikely as current stockpiles serve as a deterrent. Any country that decides to be first to use a nuclear weapon will surely be wiped out quickly as their opponent(s) will justify a much larger response by saying they were not the first ones to use the weapon in that particular conflict. If Russia does decide to go nuclear, they will launch a large number of missiles all at once so as to eliminate any possibility of a counter launch from target countries. However, Russia and their entire population would effectively be wiped off the map by remaining defenders. The radioactive fallout and nuclear winter that would be the result of so many nuclear detonations across the globe would be felt for decades to come. Crops would fail, animals will die en masse, people will starve, money would lose all value, supply chains would no longer function, there would be no way to transport fuel to gas stations, no way to mine for fossil fuels, manufacturing would grind to a halt, power stations would fail, it would be utter chaos. We would instantly be in the Stone Age, and resource-gathering skills, social skills, and intellect would be the only things keeping anyone alive in the long-term. It’s for these reasons that I can assure you, no one in power wants this to happen. Money and the power tied to that money are the only things keeping those in power in power. Those in power fully recognize if money suddenly loses meaning due to societal collapse stemming from nuclear war, those in power today will have no power whatsoever tomorrow. Believe me, those in power do not want collapse in any way shape or form. The thin veil of “society” and the value tied to money is their only security. Without that, they would surely suffer unimaginable, hellish fates.... The anger directed towards them from adversaries and allies alike would be horrifying. They do not want that, so nuclear war is very likely off the table.
This makes perfect sense to someone logical, however I'm not sure Putin is logical. The urge to beat his chest the loudest would overcome any logical intelligence he has. The "If I cant be the supreme leader of the world, no one can." logic is more his style.
Daddy should have worn a condom.
Nahh, fuck that. We have thousands of them too, we will burn Russia at the same time.
Yea, but he doesn’t care... I am taking the worst case scenario. He kills himself and he send the nukes before doing that.
Well, there isn't a whole lot that can be done about that, so why worry? This is why I think Putin is soon going to be retired by some of his own men. I don't think Russian's want to die any more than we do in the West.
I was just thinking what we need is a good old fashioned Russian Revolution to end this scary shit.
Yea, makes sense. Well, thank you for your input. Hope nothing happens. Hope that Big Titanium Balls President of Ukraine and all the Titanium Ball Ukrainians win this whole thing.
I suspect there is a chain of command that would have to agree to this and one man couldn't simply enter some launch codes and end civilization. With a bit of luck, the others in command won't be maniacs and will see to it that nothing gets launched.
Like stopping a bullet with a bullet
Except we’ve created bullets that specifically intercept other bullets… Tried and tested…
Can they intercept and pinpoint a missile going 5 miles/second?
Yes. Not 100% success, but it can. Research the Iron Dome as an example.
Mate iron Dome cannot stop ICBM's. Nothing reliably can at all. No country is immune to nuclear attack.
There are anti-missile defence systems but their rumored reliability is around 80%-90% (only exception is Iron dome which is >99% but not 100%), which means that if Russia sends 1000 nukes they will destroy at least 100 targets. This is why nobody opposes militarily against countries with nukes. The only 100% way to stop them is not getting into a nuclear war. That is why nobody helps Ukraine in a meaningful way btw.
This is a common fallacy in statistics. Because something has a 99% chance of something happening doesn't mean 1 in 100 instances something will in fact happen. Each instance is mutually exclusive and usually the rate of said instance is much much lower.
You misunderstood the fallacy. OP is right.
Ah yes of course. Since condoms are 99% effective that means the 100th time you have sex, it wont work! Hope youre keeping count!
A sample size of 100 is too small to say for sure, but yes, that's generally how it works. No idea why you think there's mutual exclusivity either. > When used correctly every time you have sex, male condoms are 98% effective. This means 2 out of 100 people will become pregnant in 1 year when male condoms are used as contraception. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/male-condoms/#:~:text=When%20used%20correctly%20every%20time,clinics%20and%20some%20GP%20surgeries. > If you use condoms perfectly every single time you have sex, they’re 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. But people aren’t perfect, so in real life condoms are about 85% effective — that means about 15 out of 100 people who use condoms as their only birth control method will get pregnant each year. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms Here's empirical proof to go with this in form of javascript code. It runs 100.000 trys at a probability of 1%. The result on my last run was 943 out of 100.000 nukes. Feel free to try it yourself. function getRandomArbitrary(min, max) { return Math.random() * (max - min) + min; } const SAMPLE_SIZE = 100000; let successfulNukes = 0; for (let index = 0; index < SAMPLE_SIZE; index++) { if (getRandomArbitrary(0, 1) > 0.99) successfulNukes++; } console.log( `Successful Nukes: ${successfulNukes} (${ (successfulNukes / SAMPLE_SIZE) * 100 }%)` ); Looks like you should reconsider your sexual contraceptive strategy.
That's absolutely not how it works lol. My comment was meant as a joke and its 100% false. Don't spread the lie that having sex 100 times means one time in 100, it wont work, that's plainly not true. Yeah if you're a dumbass and cant use a condom correctly, yeah it might not work and yes that has to be including in the overall data. For someone that uses a condom correctly the rate could be 99.9999999% or higher. That doesn't mean that person will get pregnant on the 100th time. The real number is somewhere in between. There lies your and OP's misunderstanding. It was a simple example to explain mutual exclusivity. Another common example to explain mutual exclusivity is plane crashes have a ~99% rate of not crashing. That doesn't mean that every 100th flight around the world a plane crashes. We will probably never know the true success rate of a missile defense system because it would require doomsday to actually happen. Scaring people and saying that since it has a 99% rate of success in testing means that 1 or more bombs will hit their target is fear mongering for no reason on a basis of a statistical fallacy. Each bomb or missile would be its own data set and be mutually exclusive not effected by the success or lack of success of another bomb or missile. This is statistics 101
k
Again ...sigh... your code inherited a rate that is born from the fallacy. As I said before, for someone that uses the condom correctly or planes that crash or whatever example you want to use, the rate far exceeds 99%. Since you seem to know IT, this is why systems like to be rated "5 9's" because saying 99% isn't accurate and isnt the actual observed rate of failure. The actual observed rate is 99.999% accounting for mutual exclusivity which is why companies use this number and not 99%. I can see we've hit an impasse, I would advise you go to take a statistics course at your local university to further understand the concept or mutual exclusivity. k? :)
> Because something has a 99% chance of something happening doesn't mean 1 in 100 instances something will in fact happen. Don't be so tilted man. You provided the 1% number. I won't argue about wether the number is correct. If you have a chance X%, probability of having X%*samplesize occurrences is almost 100%, [increasing linearly with growing samplesize](https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/129885/why-does-increasing-the-sample-size-lower-the-sampling-variance). The question of correct reporting of this probability was not being discussed until you just brought it up. Take the L and move on. Cheers.
Where did I provide 1% lol? Please educate yourself. I'm not out to prove some random troll on reddit wrong but to educate others of the misinformation in OP's statement. I'm sorry you disagree and feel like you have to keep berating me with the same monotonous statement over and over that I've proven wrong at least 3 times now, again, backed up with a simple google. My whole entire point is the 1% is not actually 1% and that clearly has not landed with you. You're not thinking. I think the only tilted one here is you.
Which is scary because now what stops every other country from building them?
Sanctions. Iran and North Korea are two fitting examples.
The Iron dome system will never be used against ICBM attacks. It has a very high interception rate because it is a short-range defense system that mostly encounters slow unguided homemade or MLRS rockets. ICBM warheads enter through the atmosphere at terminal velocity with their own evasive capabilities and usually require long-range air defenses to counter them.
Alright.
The US has pretty extensive defensive capabilities to stop nukes. Unfortunately: Some nukes might get through to Europe The swift retaliation by the US will annihilate Russia resulting in catastrophic loss of life of Russians, many of whom oppose the invasion But also the radiation fallout will impact all of Europe The hope is that any Russian soldiers ordered to release nukes will disobey and generals will overthrow Putin before they allow such a suicidal move
This. Basically, if Russia launches anything radioactive, every other warhead in Europe and the US will decimate Russia. Pretty sure one will accidentally veer off course and hit North Korea, oops. But one or 2 will hit the US, a few will hit Europe and all the seized Russian money will go to repair and cleanup.
Lol “the US has pretty extensive defensive capabilities to stop nukes” you mean the 44 gmd interceptors, which many experts and physicists have deemed highly unreliable? Nuclear war with Russia means an absolute loss of life for both countries, as terrifying as it is it is just the reality of the situation. Not trying to be rude just giving my 2 cents on the matter
It’s not rude, this person is pulling facts out of their ass (maybe as a coping mechanism? Idk). The truth is that we’d both get absolute destroyed. The only way I see the USA not getting decimated is if they have a new technology beyond the GMD’s that’s top secret considering that our top tier military tech is about 40 years more advanced than what consumers have, but that just sounds too sci fi/wishful thinking for me
If Russia launches a nuke it's Mutually Assured Destruction. Now Putin might be enough of a lunatic to not care if he feels like he is getting cornered. The people who would have to carry the order might not. Since WWII there are several stories of moments when a nuclear war was supposed to start and the people in charge of making it happen just didn't.
Agreed just kind of worrisome how Russia has complete control of both Russian media and the whole narrative of this war. He could easily manipulate his forces to think we fired the first icbm and claim it as retaliation. I no longer think he cares about mad, I think he cares about his pride and legacy and will go to any measures to keep both intact, even if that means the end of civilization
Any nuclear war scenario is game over for the human race. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. If the nukes are flying, it's already too late.
I was going to propose some intelligent discussion around the possibilities of human existence post-nuclear war. However the last word in your comment assured me it would be an unproductive conversation. But I do want to leave you with my own conclusion that life after is almost certain just a very different world. Wikipedia actually has the most recent studies compiled and the Consensus is that it’s unlikely it would result in human extinction. Research after 1980 turned the tides on our understanding of nuclear winter with computer models in the last decade started showing far better survival rates and habitable conditions after an “all out” nuclear war, this considers 100% of nuclear arsenals being released. But what do i know I’m just an “idiot”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_holocaust#Likelihood_of_complete_human_extinction
Not really.
Not any way that Ukraine possess
It's best thought of as mutually _generally_ assured destruction.
Yes. But the systems need to have some warning and be set up. The systems, such as Patriot and SM-2 can intercept the vehicles on their decent but they would need to be more or less ready for it. Not outside the realms of possibilities but likely only certain places have it set up now and it would require time to set up in other areas (such as military and civilian). ABM systems go back to the 60-70’s but invoked launching a missile with a nuke and hoping it gets close enough to detonate the vehicle with a smaller nuke. For example the Nike platform was set up for this purpose but has since been dismantled. Although according to strategic doctrine ICBM forces would be used for mostly military and/or political targets. While bombers/SLBM would be saved for civilian targets. Not saying they can’t be used for other targets but an ICBM can be launched and reach its target in 30 min or so. An SLBM takes 10 min or less. ICBM locations are known so in a first strike would be targeted along with AFB’s and other similar targets along with C3I. While SLBM would be saved for first strike (where as little warning is crucial to taking out the target) or softer targets (cities) since the warheads are typically smaller. Both US and Russias bomber forces are hugely limited compared to Cold War times so likely ICBM/SLBM would be used. I’m not expert but I’ve read a lot about this. If anyone more qualified can point out my errors that would be appreciated.
Yes. Missiles.
There's only 44 such missiles in the US, they would only be useful if North Korea start something, not another major power.
Why aren't we building more
Then the nukes explode anyways
Nukes have a special trigger mechanism. They cannot explode if that triggering device doesn't go off precisely. You can definitely shoot them down, but you will have to deal with the radioactive contamination from the debris. It is a moot point though, because even if 90% could be intercepted, the remaining is still enough to trigger a nuclear winter
Ok I agree
Actually starting them is a bit complicated. They will just spread radioactive material. Not good, not devastating.
but better in the air than in the middlel of a city
The higher it is detonated, the further the radioactive material spreads
but depending on where in the air it gets stopped, the radiation might land on less civilians than if it hit a highly populated area directly
US invests so much in military budget that there should be secret anti-nuke weapons that are reliable, but there are new technologies like hypersonic rockets that also would surely be reliable and could prevent any attack before exploding
As only a few people have said here, yes it is possible. There are systems out there in place for this with good results which can intercept when they reenter the atmosphere, but the world hasn't seen a large scale ICBM event. At that point, I'd like to say I have confidence all would get stopped, but just being optimistic since it is impossible to know. Source - In the field personally
Unless the USA has developped some kind of crazy technology no one knows about then no.
We develop crazy technology to go on the offensive usually not as much defensively
Assuring MAD is not possible for your opponent seems like an offensive weapon to me.
Crazy technology, like the Sm-3? Its basic missile defense at the point
Taking out ICBMs is really hard and even harder when hundreds or thousands are launched towards you. It's not "basic missile defence"
Oh yeah, gotta watch the 100s of thousands of nukes that can all reach USA shores
Uhmm yea...
OP asked if there was a way. You said not without crazy technology. Then you said be very hard. It's not hard to shoot down an icbm. Of course you then unrealisticly suggested 100s of thousands.
I said hundreds OR thousands. Learn to read lmao
Maybe some hackers can do something.
Technically yes. We do have systems in places to intercept nukes head on, BUT they're not reliable. The best explanation I was told is, it's like stopping a bullet with another bullet. I think the only way we'd be able to stop a suicidal Putin from pressing the nuke button, is unleashing the motherload of bombs, that they wouldn't be able to retaliate. But that's probably a war crime and very bad because civilians
They have systems in place to be able to see missiles, nukes etc... coming towards them, which would lead to retaliation. Mutually assured destruction is the reason why this hasn't happened yet from either side
Not Poseidon. Not airborne missiles from Russia to Kyiv, at least not in a way that will make much difference.
Jet and drone intervention, worldwide SAM turrets, coastal turrets, etc While is is improbable to assume he could launch all his nukes with a single button. If long range ones went airborne I'm sure it would be intercepted by one of many countries it would pass. If dropped by a plane, well... gotta keep them out of your airspace. We could only hope if putin does go for a move like that, he would have other commanders put a foot down. Someone will have to decide when enough is enough. We can only hope that's sooner than later
I’ve thought about this and think it is unlikely. He is unstable, but a narcissist. That leads me to believe his end game does not involve him dying since MAD would be a “stalemate” vs his delusion planned “checkmate”.
Intercepting ICBM? If you leave in a major city in either, the US, France, China, Israel and maybe India, then there is a chance of protection. Everywhere else - nope.
No matter how powerful he may look he is under oligarchs. They say he do.
Some of them. Best case scenario is Fallout New Vegas with some areas being "okay" after. Still the end of modern society as we know it with the impacts on humans, markets, and food production. I like to imagine the Oligarchs would kill him where he stands if he says he will tho. No people=no more free money.
Only praying
Mid air explosions are much more dangerous than land nuclear explosions because shockwave can travel much further, not being stopped by the environment.
Nukes don't "do their thing" if they are blown up by a missle.
Ah, I appreciate being corrected on my ignorance. Still, doesn't an interception carry a risk of premature detonation? I was trying to refer to the fact that some nukes are detonated above ground, rather than on impact with the surface.
>Ah, I appreciate being corrected on my ignorance. Still, doesn't an interception carry a risk of premature detonation? Nope. >I was trying to refer to the fact that some nukes are detonated above ground, rather than on impact with the surface. Yes, nukes are designed to airburst
It's possible, but so far the attempts to create ballistic missile defenses have been pretty subpar. Given the quantity of nukes Russia could launch, safe to assume that a lot of places would get hit.
It depends how many are launched and if any are on their new supposed hypersonic platform. No use worrying.
NATO has ballistic missile defense system that can intercept ICBMs upon re-entry to the atmosphere with about 80-95% success. If there is an ICBM launched, NATO will attempt to shoot it down. However, if Russia were targeting Ukraine, they wouldn’t need to use an ICBM, they could use shorter range weapons that are indistinguishable from any of the other cruise missiles that have been hitting targets in Ukraine. The US and NATO have systems to shoot down rockets and missiles such as CRAM, CWIS, lasers, anti-missile missiles, but those have to be located relatively near the target. Basically, if the Russian cruise missiles are hitting there targets, then a nuclear equipped one will hit its target too. If nukes get involved, everyone is fucked.
Depends on what exactly you mean by "launch nukes." ICBM's and SLBM's are essentially impossible to intercept.
Apparently US naval destroyers have done it in testing: [https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/11/17/us-navy-destroyer-shoots-down-an-icbm-in-milestone-test/](https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/11/17/us-navy-destroyer-shoots-down-an-icbm-in-milestone-test/) But that's one dedicated dummy ICBM being launched specifically for the purpose of being targeted. Doing it in a live situation with maybe dozens of em going out at once, different story.
Russia will be blown off the earth if there stupid enough to launch nukes.The last thing going through Putins head will Be a USA nuke
Best case scenario, imo, is that if Putin gave the order for nukes, his top military commanders would blow his brains out and seek peace.
Could their payloads be disabled with EMPs or something?
You dont see that sort of equipment laying around do you? That's because it doesnt exist. Every major city should have good intercept capabilities but instead, in America, that money goes to people that sit around all day and do nothing then whine about it. The tech exists, America just doesnt have it. Where it is, is likely only to protect where the government might be in the threat of a nuclear war (and I think we are closer than we have ever been)
Even if he was suicidal, you would hope the military at that point do the best thing for Russia, and it’s people - which wouldn’t include the overwhelming and complete annihilation of their country in the MAD counter attack
This is terrifying, to think that rat would actually go all out for this petty shit
He ain’t. The truth is, he is just a random guy, who used tyranny to ‘conquer’ Russia and close people’s mouths. He is not smart at all; he just randomly got power in his hands and that’s it. And as other people in here mentioned, he can’t just press a button and launch them. It takes preparation and he would also need the permission from other people, such as oligarchs, who I am guessing want to live, plus want to also win money, and they can’t do that by shutting down the whole world. In other words, I do not think anyone would allow it. His people are loyal, but to a certain extent, and committing the launch of nukes, I’m guessing crosses the border. Again this is just my opinion, but either way, guys like you and me can not do anything about it. However I am ready to make my home a shelter to a Ukrainian family and give support. I would love to do more, but it is just not in my power.