Dr sim
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2010
- Messages
- 272
- Reaction score
- 0
Is there any way ( both theoretical or Practical ) to counter a nuclear weapon. IS it Even possible to do so?
I found a nice answer/article on Yahoo , but I ll be glad if people over here can enlighten me further.........
It is possible for the incoming nuclear warhead to have a special fuze such that it is designed to detonate (go nuclear) if it is about to be intercepted. This is called a salvage fuze since it salvages something by detonating over the enemy's territory, even if you primarily get an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that degrades all the electronic systems below it out to the horizon.
If the defensive weapon is a kinetic interceptor (direct hit at high relative speed), and assuming no salvage fuze on the incoming warhead, most likely you would not get a nuclear detonation out of the incoming warhead. You may or may not get a lot of little pieces, but that depends on the relative speed and how direct the hit was.
At very high speeds, you might get more of a hydraulic effect (a splash) much like what you get with armor piercing (shaped) charges. That merely means that the energy levels are so high that the metallic bonds in the metals are relatively small when compared to that energy input. So, in that case being a metallic solid is not much better than being a fluid. That means you can get a thousand pieces, as already pointed out.
If the defensive warhead is just a high explosive with a proximity fuze, chances are the incoming missile warhead will be disabled but not disintegrated but the defensive warhead detonating at some distance. However, if the high explosive used in the incoming nuclear warhead itself detonates (somewhat likely but not assured), then the fissile material in the warhead could get dispersed as small particles. That fissile material is not very radioactive, although plutonium (if used in the warhead) also has other toxic effects that make it dangerous.
If the defensive warhead is also nuclear, the defenders have decided that it is indeed better to have nuclear explosions high in the atmosphere to avoid the blast, thermal, direct radiation (gammas and neutrons), and radioactive fallout effects. Then the challenge is to detect and intercept high enough to make it worthwhile.
The closer the detonation is to the earth's surface, the more solid materials get sucked into high radiation fields and, thus, the radioactive fallout cloud. Materials can get activated (made to be radioactive) by absorbing neutrons from the nuclear detonation. A small detonation of a crude nuclear weapon on the surface of the Earth could result in radioactive contamination of an area from Washington, DC to Phiadelphia such that people would start moving out.
Overall, your question shows why there was so much uncertainty during the Cold War, where mutually assured destruction really kept potential foes from doing anything, even if barely. You could have anti-anti-missiles and on and on. With the advent of highly accurate kinetic (direct hit) defensive interceptors, we are now able to discourage missile programs, but we still have to worry about other modes of delivery. Thus, we can install defensive missiles around Iran, but we also have to install detection equipment at seaports and even airports.
The worst case answer to your question is where the incoming nuclear missile has a salvage fuze, detects a defensive nuclear warhead blast, and detonates at a low level over the defender's territory just after the defensive nuclear detonation. That would cause a lot of direct radiation and EMP, but it would likely be too high in the atmosphere to produce very much in terms of radioactive fallout, at least relative to the fallout from a nuclear burst on the Earth's surface.
I found a nice answer/article on Yahoo , but I ll be glad if people over here can enlighten me further.........
It is possible for the incoming nuclear warhead to have a special fuze such that it is designed to detonate (go nuclear) if it is about to be intercepted. This is called a salvage fuze since it salvages something by detonating over the enemy's territory, even if you primarily get an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that degrades all the electronic systems below it out to the horizon.
If the defensive weapon is a kinetic interceptor (direct hit at high relative speed), and assuming no salvage fuze on the incoming warhead, most likely you would not get a nuclear detonation out of the incoming warhead. You may or may not get a lot of little pieces, but that depends on the relative speed and how direct the hit was.
At very high speeds, you might get more of a hydraulic effect (a splash) much like what you get with armor piercing (shaped) charges. That merely means that the energy levels are so high that the metallic bonds in the metals are relatively small when compared to that energy input. So, in that case being a metallic solid is not much better than being a fluid. That means you can get a thousand pieces, as already pointed out.
If the defensive warhead is just a high explosive with a proximity fuze, chances are the incoming missile warhead will be disabled but not disintegrated but the defensive warhead detonating at some distance. However, if the high explosive used in the incoming nuclear warhead itself detonates (somewhat likely but not assured), then the fissile material in the warhead could get dispersed as small particles. That fissile material is not very radioactive, although plutonium (if used in the warhead) also has other toxic effects that make it dangerous.
If the defensive warhead is also nuclear, the defenders have decided that it is indeed better to have nuclear explosions high in the atmosphere to avoid the blast, thermal, direct radiation (gammas and neutrons), and radioactive fallout effects. Then the challenge is to detect and intercept high enough to make it worthwhile.
The closer the detonation is to the earth's surface, the more solid materials get sucked into high radiation fields and, thus, the radioactive fallout cloud. Materials can get activated (made to be radioactive) by absorbing neutrons from the nuclear detonation. A small detonation of a crude nuclear weapon on the surface of the Earth could result in radioactive contamination of an area from Washington, DC to Phiadelphia such that people would start moving out.
Overall, your question shows why there was so much uncertainty during the Cold War, where mutually assured destruction really kept potential foes from doing anything, even if barely. You could have anti-anti-missiles and on and on. With the advent of highly accurate kinetic (direct hit) defensive interceptors, we are now able to discourage missile programs, but we still have to worry about other modes of delivery. Thus, we can install defensive missiles around Iran, but we also have to install detection equipment at seaports and even airports.
The worst case answer to your question is where the incoming nuclear missile has a salvage fuze, detects a defensive nuclear warhead blast, and detonates at a low level over the defender's territory just after the defensive nuclear detonation. That would cause a lot of direct radiation and EMP, but it would likely be too high in the atmosphere to produce very much in terms of radioactive fallout, at least relative to the fallout from a nuclear burst on the Earth's surface.
.
