Hacker News Reader

Comment by alacombe | Hacker News Reader

> We really need to develop anti-ICBM tech to save the humanity

If I'm not mistaken, to some extend, both the Russian and the US already have this tech operational.

Though, this would not protect with the obvious "first blood" intent of NK, in which case, Kim better pray for cover (rightfully so).

View on HN

None of the countries have a technology that can reliably stop a modern ICBM, let alone 7000 warheads simultaneously that Russia has.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile#Current...

Why you assume such technology would be on display or general public knowledge?

I'm sure there is tons of technology we regular civilians have no idea of, and its actually a good strategy.

That's not a convincing argument. Whatever is shown to us doesn't work well.

From 2 months ago:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-missile-defense-test-fails-...

The fact that most military projects are secret/top secret is not convincing argument?

Everyone knows that what's "on display" is basically 10 years behind what military such as USA keeps in secret to use it as a last-resort type of response.

Nah, we have anti-ICBM technology but it's hilariously inadequate, as in, rate of successful interception is very low. And when you have nukes attached to the ICBMs, your can't tolerate even a single one going through.

And then US and Russia both have MIRV systems which carry 15-20 warheads on one rocket, so if you don't intercept it in the first stage of flight it's game over anyway. And Russia recently finished developing the System-6 nuclear torpedo which can destroy possibly more land than large megaton warheads anyway, since it creates a 500m tsunami wave which travels hundreds of miles in-land destroying everything in its path. And if it's salted with cobalt then that land becomes unusable for decades.

It's Status-6, and it's not necessarily real.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyon

You say we can't tolerate even a single one getting through, but… what would a war look like between Russia and the USA if there were no nukes?

Sure, a conventional war would never be as bad as 7,000 nukes, but one? Seven? Seven hundred? I expect conventional munitions would likely be better targeted, simply out of necessity, so the difference would be smaller than the ratio of TNT-equivalents.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com