> The missile-defense system work by using SAMs (Surface-to-Air Missiles). Having a nuke counter an ICBM will lead to far worse fallout. While you're correct, the planes don't want to be in that crossfire, the missile targeting system would more than easily account for civilian aircraft and avoid them.

ICBMs travel in excess of Mach 10, and typical SAMs are Mach 1 to Mach 5.

--------

Instead of using a small explosive to bring down an enemy nuke, surely there's an idea to use a bigger counter-nuke? Sure, there's going to be a ton of fallout, but that's still better than losing the entirety of San Francisco.

Its a lot easier to hit an enemy missile with a big-bomb, rather than using a little bomb. IE: load those SAMs with nukes and have at it. Even if you're slower, you got the strength and blast-radius of a nuke and have a better chance of bringing down the enemy ICBM.

------

I don't think its an issue of "airplanes would be hit by a SAM". I think it's seriously the risk of airplanes literally getting caught in the blasts (that were aimed at the enemy missile).