• RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Yup - anyone who is likely to try and hit the US is far enough away is going to be using long range ballistic missiles, and it’s been pretty conclusively demonstrated that it’s technically feasible to intercept a single missile, it sure isn’t reliable enough to be a reasonable deterrent or cheap enough to build enough launchers to give you any amount of coverage.

    Iron dome works because Israel is small, with a concentrated population, and is being attacked with small, short range rockets that are easy to spot on radar - that isn’t a likely scenario for the US to face

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Well, we’re probably working on that with the SM-3. They took out a satellite with it so hitting a mid course ICBM shouldn’t be too hard.

      • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 minutes ago

        The issue with ICBM interception as I understand it is that it’s one of those cases where the economics heavily favor the attacker. An intercept missile requires a rocket just as capable the one launching the target, if not more so. But, you can’t afford letting even a few nukes get through, even one is devasting, so given that the chance of a successful intercept isn’t 100 percent (my understanding is that it’s well below 100% currently, for likely real world conditions), you need several intercept missiles for every missile your enemy has. Any countermeasures that make taking the enemy missile out harder, like deploying decoys or such, increases the needed resources on your end far more than it increases the resources used by them.

        It might be viable against countries like North Korea where the difference in resources is vast enough, but against any serious opponent like Russia or China, it’s not likely to work out.