Re: shooting down a spy satellite
Nope:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration_aids" Ahem... It's a family website.
For this type of thing Wiki may not be the best reference. The only footnote in that article refers to a book from 1969.
I poked around on some websites to refute this and the answer seems to be "no they don't work, and if we told you why, we'd have to kill you."
I'm probably on 1/2 a dozen FBI/CIA/NSA watch lists now.:redface:
Some of what I found:
Mylar balloons- Blast a load of jello (Yes, real jello) out the front of an interceptor so that it has higher velocity than the interceptor itself. The first thing that happens is that all the water evaporates so we are left with a cloud of fine but very hard particles in a shotgun blast. That'll act as a sorting mechanism. Balloons etc will get shredded by the blast, relatively solid RVs won?t be affected. So the interceptor following can see what is solid and what isn't. That?s one of the technologies used. Jello is good because it disperses evenly while something that?s solid to start with (sand for example) clumps.
Nuclear radar blackout-
. The EMP effects last for about 10 nano-seconds. For military radars, the moment they detect the power surge, they switch off then back on. The operator wouldn?t even notice. If you feel like reading up on it, here is a good explanation in layman?s terms. Electronic Effects of Nuclear Initiations
The whole decoy thing comes down to this.
Quote from the 'Seer Stuart' of the above article.
It's not really that hard to pick out the "live" RV.
1.) The IR signature of an actual nuclear warhead is quite distinguishable against a very cold background of space, because the fissile material in the warhead generates a unique internal signature (remember, plutonium is warm to the touch). (Mid-Course); oh I wonder why we put a IR seeker on our Kill vehicle....
2.) As the targets start to enter the Earth's atmosphere; it means the much lighter decoys will decelerate much more rapidly than the actual, much heavier, warheads.
In all, to defeat ABM, you would need a decoy that pretty much for a multitude of reasons is the exact same shape and weight of the real warhead.
With that in mind, why carry decoys, when you could use that precious throw weight to toss an actual warhead instead?
Everything I read on the ABMs spoke of radar. Anyway - stealth also includes things such as coatings (to absorb radar, decrease the 'radar visibility'... This can be true of heat too so as to decrease the infra-red visibility). So, even if the shape can't be changed (I have doubts as to if that is a true statement - maybe we can't remove, but perhaps add to it?), then coatings can be applied.
Another area were mum's the word.
Up to this point, nobody has needed to make the ICBMs move around - but it's like anything else. If there's a need, there will be a solution.
Actually they have, however, maneuvering is limited if you're still going to hit the target.
How about another Stuart article.
MRVs, MIRVs and MARVs
India has the capability (it has successfully tested interception), and will deploy a system around 2010.
MAD may go away for a small while, but it's the same old sword/shield balance -ie: why our warriors don't wear plate mail. Soon enough, some country will figure out how to get around the current type of defenses, and we will need new ones. Nope, technology isn't the solution to the root cause of this..
-V
This is true. It's a never ending battle. But that's no excuse not to defend against them. Ballistic missiles are inherently destabilizing. Without defenses, once one flys they all fly. No nation will sit with their missiles in the silo once they start flying. It's a miracle we got thru the cold war without blowing our selves up.
Note: 'Seer Stuart' is a defense analyst named Stuart Slade.
Here's his bio so that you know he's not just talking out of his arse.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/default2_bioSS.htm
I'm off to hide from the MiB's.
