Is there any way to shoot down or disable a nuclear missile once its been fired? If so, how reliable? If not, why not?

>In the US, ICBMs they have a circuit board that can self destruct the missile in case there is a miss-fire/ malfunction.

Wrong. There are manual destruct options on PAL systems, but there are no remote options. Recallable ICBMs are self-defeating.

>Source: I build related product.

eba-d.com/capabilities/missile-aircraft-and-space-vehicle/flight-termination-systems/signal-transfer/

Take some time to browse through this sites options, these things go on missiles. Quit knee jerking with your reactions. So like I said, it would be tough to do, but if you gain access to these systems you can disable the missile.

There is absolutely no mention of nuclear loaded ICBMS, just lots of vague words that could be about any "missile". You have failed to back up your claim. A claim that is entirely the opposite of what is considered common knowledge about ICBMs

taskandpurpose.com/air-force-minuteman-icbm-self-destruct

Wow, you sure told me. Those missiles totally don't have a self-destruct option in case something goes wrong.

Yea dude, your common knowledge is pretty wrong, US ICBMs are guided from launch to impact. You can not ensure accuracy otherwise. When you're done being befuddled and google this let me know.

Attached: 1527350728857.jpg (960x798, 128K)

Test launch does not equal a real launch. You are correct, they are guided, via an internal inertial navigation system, not by some external control or GPS.
I'm not even gonna comment on the reddit spacing

>can abort operational missiles during tests
>cant do it during normal operation.

Now it is YOU who needs to prove the claim. Not even that other faggot, you are just being a dumbass now.

it costs you 1 bil to build an interceptor. It costs them 50 mils to build a missile. You do the math friend.

>Is there any way to shoot down or disable a nuclear missile once its been fired?

yeah, you shoot it. missiles have thin walls and are loaded with stuff that explodes. remember the space shuttle challenger? that huge explosion was caused by a tiny hole. so all you have to do is make a tiny hole somewhere and the missile goes boom

however if the warhead has already separated from the missile, you have to shoot at the warhead instead. this is much harder.

>If so, how reliable?

not at all reliable. almost every system that's been devised to do this hasn't worked very well. the very best in the world can take out a missile if it shoots at it (with other missiles) several times, maybe.

systems designed to kill the warheads themselves have basically all been failures.

>If not, why not?

well to start with, when the missile is in flight towards its target, it is typically very far away from the anti-missile systems. the only part of the missile that actually falls on the target is the warhead - the missile gets discarded long before that. so the chance of you even getting to shoot at the missile to begin with is basically zero.

on top of that, it's really hard to kill a warhead. firstly, there is usually more than one warhead, either because the enemy has fired more than one missile or the missiles themselves carry multiple warheads. secondly, the missiles also carry an assload of decoys and countermeasures that make it difficult to sort out what's a warhead and what's a warhead-shaped balloon. and third, the warheads travel extremely fast towards their target - at roughly five miles per second.

so basically, for all practical purposes, it's not really possible to do it right now. maybe someday, but not yet.

America is so fucking dope

it's up to you to prove that the actual combat-ready ICBM's have self-destruct mechanisms. of course a missile being used for a test would have it, but I really doubt that the ones sitting in north dakota do. I googled it a bit and can't find any evidence that they do, just a lot of people saying that they don't.

>US ICBMs are guided from launch to impact.

yeah, using inertial guidance, following a path set by the missile crew before launch. they're not guided by an external signal.

minutemanmissile.com/missileguidancesystem.html

>Is there any way to shoot down or disable a nuclear missile once its been fired?
yes
>If so, how reliable?
goes from not very much to very little

>If not, why not?
Let's start with the "easiest". That is short range ballistic missiles. Your old school squd and the likes. The short range means short response time. Absolutely possible, and it has been done multiple times, especially during the gulf wars. But, you need a lot of defensive missiles in place beforehand, and have pretty good knowledge about the capabilities of the enemy.

For long and intermediate range ballistic missiles, you have a longer response time, but you also have one hell of a small and fast target to hit. To get a good target solution, you need radars closer, to have time to shoot it down. So you need allies willing to place those radars in their country. Nevermind that those systems won't help your allies against said missiles, as they'll have too little time to protect themselves. And even with the radars in correct position, and your defensive systems working properly, there's still a lot the attacker can do, like decoys, radar jamming, whatever. Some warheads can be intercepted, but you're not going to stop an all out attack.

As for cruise missiles. There's this common misconception that these are easiest. There's some truth to it. Yes, they're slower, and can potentionally be shot down by a fighter jet. But, unlike the ballistic missiles, these fly low, meaning you need way more defensive systems to cover an equal area. And you can't use the same systems for cruise missiles. Basically, you need a shit ton of air defense systems. Yes, it's the "easiest" to shoot down, if you have the system capable of shooting it down within radar coverage, which you probably won't have.

There's reliable systems against short range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. But they're of limited use against nuclear weapons solely because of the limited area they can cover.

>Absolutely possible, and it has been done multiple times, especially during the gulf wars.

this is actually not true

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#Success_rate_vs._accuracy

>In response to the testimonies and other evidence, the staff of the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security reported, "The Patriot missile system was not the spectacular success in the Persian Gulf War that the American public was led to believe. There is little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq during the Gulf War, and there are some doubts about even these engagements. The public and the United States Congress were misled by definitive statements of success issued by administration and Raytheon representatives during and after the war."[59]

yup. But they did shoot down some, in real combat conditions. I'd say that's a success, compared to how much worse it would be against ICBMs.

The whole "missile shield" against nuclear weapons is a pipe dream.

ah, okay, by "multiple times" you meant "twice". I thought you were one of those sheep who believed the 97% rate.

See, user, the reason they're called tests is because a new feature is being TESTED. That doesn't mean that the feature is widespread in the field, or that they would be capable of doing it reliably.

>Oh wow! The military showed under tests that a TUSK kit allows an abrams to survive an ESP/IED/ATGM better.
>That must mean that all abrams can survive an ESP/IED/ATGM, even those without a TUSK.

Depends on the missile. Really, any missile can be intercepted, the nuclear aspect is only a reference to the payload, not any specif to the missile's performance.Let's assume we are talking about Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Currently, the US has a few counter measures (that are known). Interception at launch deep within Russia/China would be extremely hard, so Midcourse interception (in low areas of space) is the first practical area of interdiction. The US can deploy mid course counter measures like the Ground Based Interceptor (with a exoatmospheric Kill vehicle to hunt the enemy warhead) from the US mainland. The US can also deploy a salvo of Stand Missile-3s from AEGIS destroyers at sea, they deploy a smaller kill vehicle for interception. If these fail, "close" in weapons may be used, THAAD, Patriot, SM-2/6 etc. If THESE fail you are a goner. No close range defense like Phalanx will do any good at the desired blast height

Attached: 1527304462411.jpg (2100x1400, 274K)

SM-3 is one of the only "known" effective mid course interceptors. The GBI program has always had issues

Attached: sm3_launch2.jpg (950x1188, 115K)