Is it possible that one day, any missile launched from the distance will be taken out before it reaches its target?
Will that make static defenses like coastal guns and flak-towers a viable strategy again?
Also, would that suddenly undo MAD? Because without long range missiles being able to deliver nukes, you would have to drop them from a plane.
So if both those are true, you might see a return of Americas defense strategy from the end of WW2 until the development of the ICBM, the early cold war. Defensive structures meant to take down bombers before they can drop nukes on American soil.
now thats what I call art
>>30591361
your dick's impotent.
>>30591361
Any missile defense able to destroy all incoming missiles is just as able to destroy all incoming aircraft.
>>30591361
>Also, would that suddenly undo MAD? Because without long range missiles being able to deliver nukes, you would have to drop them from a plane.
did you think about this
-at all-
before you posted it?
>>30591441
Planes are impervious to missile-killing AA apparently.
No. There are technical problems with missile defense, but the practical ones are even worse. Even if your interceptor is 100% reliable, for every missile the enemy can theoretically have ready to fire, the defender must have an equal number ready to fire; and the enemy gets to decide the time and place at which to fire all those missiles.
MIRV and cluster munitions make the problem even worse, because you need a separate interceptor for every submunition, and they typically include several decoys as well.
The start treaty doesn't ban decoys.
>>30591569
That assumes your missile defense uses missiles as the kill vehicle, which is only one possible explored option.
>>30591569
Decoys are the real kick in the balls. The cost of adding a decoy is tiny, but shooting a decoy costs the same as shooting the real thing.
So you need to
a, be able to detect decoys, which AFAIK is an unsolved problem
b, shoot lots of targets real fast, which is expensive
c, kill the delivery vehicle, so you need to be everywhere
>>30591667
No it doesn't. A directed energy or kinetic weapon is still an "interceptor" for the purposes of what I wrote, and the challenges are still the same. You can only fire a finite number of lasers or gun rounds within a given time frame within a given system, and it is only economically feasible to have a certain number of those systems.
>>30591361
Sneaky missiles
Sneaky missiles launched from sneakier subs
Sneaky missiles with Lasers for defense
Pluto with defense lasers.
Etc.
>>30591569
A missile shield does not need to be impervious to be effective.
>>30591361
Lasers.
The US military entities appear to be moving to laser(and future laser-type tech) defenses. With the recent indifference about the failures of the kill vehicle actually being able to come anywhere near it's target, it appears that airborne & spaceborne laser platforms are being developed for the ultimate deterrent. The stopgap measure are the kinetic systems being developed as 1st gen, say for your coastal flakguns/etc. Even airborne kinetic systems onboard AF defense planes aren't out of the question. Remember, they put a laser in a 747. There's nothing to stop them from making a 747 kinetic brrrrrrrt. Everything is on the table as a test platform.
The movement of nuke arsenals from storage to field use is a huge impedance for an effective deterrent. Russia, or China, would have no problem glassing the Philippines, or some other US operated locale nearest to them that stored the weapon, first in an engagement. So this storage lul exposes the movement of the weapon to attack. You want your weapons traveling hundreds to thousands of miles an hour to be effective, whether on patrol or in actual use. There aren't many things that go faster to prevent them from getting from point a to b for any use, other than lasers.
I'm sure(maybe hoping) the US has a farm-to-table approach, either currently or in the works with the smart people. GASSP. Ground, Air, Sea, SPAAACE. Implementing laser&kinetic weapons on all platforms appears to be the ultimate goal, when looking at all the various articles they're putting out lately. Even today, the person who said he was born in Hawai'i and currently has his penis on the trigger, claims he's going to grind more nukes into dust before his term is done. With Russia using the lie of the kill vehicle to break every treaty known in order to create triple-stacked mirv sticks, it makes me think all hell broke loose a long time ago and Sam is seriously playing ketchup, or catsup.
>>30592526
>Foggy/rainy day
>>30592557
>(and future laser-type tech)
Read, and you will learn.
>>30591569
The only thing I could think of was some kind of sustained magnetic field that would pull missiles off their course and go back into the air or into the horizon. But then you have a huge problem with having stray missiles hitting random things across long distances, and you can always make a non magnetic missile.
How else can you knock a missile astray or otherwise render it impotent? Lasers only work if it burns out whatever is necessary on the missile, and we don't have the lenses or power necessary for that. Maybe one day in the future.
>>30591389
If he's dick is impotent how could he put you in your mom's belly?
Well, if we figure a way to manipulate magnetism or gravity, it'll render kinematic weapons obsolete. Just create a field that'll deflect any projectile.
>>30592570
using lasers from inside the atmosphere was always a losing proposition, which is why the SDI guys wanted to put bomb-pumped x-ray lasers in orbit.
still, missile defense is a misguided idea. MAD must be preserved in order to safeguard world peace, because the main thing that keeps people from launching (or otherwise starting shit with another nuclear power) is the belief that a nuclear war is unwinnable.
>>30592726
Missile will usually have a safety on board which detonates it if it travels past a certain distance.
Or they just run out of fuel.
Art thread?
>>30591361
Is that Richlou? That dude from La Rochelle in France?
>>30594942
That's the Siege of La Rochelle
So probably
>>30594574
>still, Kevlar is a misguided idea. Balance must be preserved in order to safeguard world peace, because the main thing that keeps people from launching wars (or otherwise starting shit with another great power) is the belief that a war is unwinnable.
>>30591569
The aim is to shoot down the missile in early stages before it deploys cluster munitions. If it's mirv you treat each warhead as separate missle. You shoot it down as far from your territory as you can.
It's cost effective because you only target missles that gonna hit something important so you should compare the cost of interceptor with the cost of damage the missle is going to inflict, not the cost of the missle.
You don't just sit around under the missle shield and wait. You attack the enemy launch infrastructure once it's exposed by firing at you (usually there are much more missles than interceptors).
On a personal note, the difference between being bombed by Hizballah in 2006 without missle defence and with it in 2014 was really huge.
Also missle defence is not going to render nuclear deterrent useless since even 90% intercept rate is not enough to be cool with nukes being launched at you.
>>30591361
>Can anti-missile technology render missiles impotent?
Can bug spray technology render bugs impotent?
>>30591761
good image-recognition technology used for targeting will make all countermeasures useless. Probably just a decade away and nless an aircraft or missile can drop a inflatable scale model out the back it's going to be toast.
>>30595727
What if the decoy is a kill weapon too? What now, cunt?!
If every missile can be shot down, that includes anti-missile missiles.
>every missile accompanied by an anti-(anti-missile) missile
>>30596514
>be year 2050
>world war 3 has been going on for 34 years now
>anti-anti-missiles have changed the way we fight and the war is at a stalemate
>russian engineers have failed to come up with a solution until one day one of them becomes drunk
>"ivan, waht if we add missile to missile to kill missile that kills main missile?"
>"sergey, yuo are of genius"
anti-anti-anti-anti-missiles are now a thing
>>30591361
Of course it's possible but I researched those anti-missile systems last autumn for a project and it turns out that any countermeasure can be tricked or by-passed quite easily. So don't expect to see static defense in use any time soon.
>>30595033
not him but that is a goofy comparison, conventional war is not MAD.
>>30596872
I AM BECOME DEATH
If coastal artillery is meant to inflict damage upon landing troops, and missiles can hit artillery outside of artillery range.
Then isn't the solution to move the artillery inland further, so that missiles can't reach them but your art can fire upon the beach, and let your own missiles and such deal with enemy ships?
high powered lasers and railguns will probably make them obsolete at some point
>>30591361
sweet fuck i need to know what style of armor that is. It's beautiful
>>30595727
Hide the real warheads in mylar balloons. Release a bunch of decoys in identical balloons. If they're the same temperature, in freefall, in the vacuum of space, there is literally no way to tell them apart.
