Iron Dome for the US - Is this dangerous?

Tuur · May 23, 2025

RDKirk said:
Or they could just put a nuke into a container and ship it into a US harbor by boat.

I have reason to suspect that there are radiation detectors in ports, but it's suspicion only. I don't know one way or the other.

RDKirk · May 23, 2025

Tuur said:
I have reason to suspect that there are radiation detectors in ports, but it's suspicion only. I don't know one way or the other.

Having seen some busy ports, I'd say not.

Gene2memE · May 23, 2025

Tuur said:
I have reason to suspect that there are radiation detectors in ports, but it's suspicion only. I don't know one way or the other.

Yes. In some ports. INSIDE the port.

At which point, you've got a nuclear weapon either inside or in close proximity to a major metropolitan area. Houston, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York, New Jersey. Take your pick.

If that's not a nightmare enough scenario, how about this: nuclear weapon in the belly of a cargo plane, set to airburst during final approach.

You'd be flabbergasted how easy it would be to disguise it as a cold chain pharmaceutical shipment or a lithium ion battery shipment. For a state-level actor - think Iran or even North Korea - it would be a matter of as little as a handful months to prepare a completely legitimate shipping arrangement via a front corporation.

stevevw · May 24, 2025

SavedByGrace3 said:
Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces

www.whitehouse.gov

Maybe I mised something but the article says nothing about the Iron Dome defense program.

Tuur · May 24, 2025

Gene2memE said:
Yes. In some ports. INSIDE the port.

At which point, you've got a nuclear weapon either inside or in close proximity to a major metropolitan area. Houston, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York, New Jersey. Take your pick.

If that's not a nightmare enough scenario, how about this: nuclear weapon in the belly of a cargo plane, set to airburst during final approach.

You'd be flabbergasted how easy it would be to disguise it as a cold chain pharmaceutical shipment or a lithium ion battery shipment. For a state-level actor - think Iran or even North Korea - it would be a matter of as little as a handful months to prepare a completely legitimate shipping arrangement via a front corporation.

Right off I thought of that H bomb lost near Savannah, GA. Off Tybee, actually, but close enough not to make a difference. Whether or not it was live depends on the source.

Be that as it may, such would be more of a stunt than a crushing first-strike. Yes, it would heavily damage a city, maybe even take it out, yes, there would be millions dead. There's a limit, though, to the scale of such an attack, and it would do nothing to damage US retaliatory capabilities. Not quite what I was thinking off with the Maginot Line analogy.

RDKirk · May 24, 2025

Tuur said:
Be that as it may, such would be more of a stunt than a crushing first-strike. Yes, it would heavily damage a city, maybe even take it out, yes, there would be millions dead. There's a limit, though, to the scale of such an attack, and it would do nothing to damage US retaliatory capabilities. Not quite what I was thinking off with the Maginot Line analogy.

That's why a "gold dome" would make little difference, even less, in protecting the US.

Hans Blaster · May 24, 2025

Tuur said:
And? Depending on altitude, you wouldn't have much fallout. At least, from what I recall reading, since the fireball doesn't pick up dust from the ground. That said, the strontium 90 still in my bones didn't come from ground dust, but did come from above-ground nuclear tests. Fun fact: Us oldsters who grew up during and soon after above ground tests picked up strontium 90 distributed in the environment. Strontium is similar enough to calcium that the body uses it in the same way. There was some study involving baby teeth to determine the amount of uptake by year.

I don't think past government stupidity makes a good argument.

Tuur said:
Ideal? No. Better than allowing ICBMs to make it to their targets? Yes.

You asked if they worked. Yes. There was the Nike-Zeus missile, which I recall, and maybe slightly more modern versions that I don't. Bomarc rings a bell; I dimly remember a political cartoon of military brass arguing Nike-Zeus and Bomarc. These were fielded weapons.

That's why it's better to ask if such a system could be defeated than whether it would work. We had such system until the ABM treaty.

And for good reason.

Tuur said:
If you're talking about lasers or particle beams, there's issues like atmospheric turbulence, some of which have been dealt with, and maybe scale-up issues, though I think the US Navy has done some work there. There's a reason I mentioned the Maginot Line. Great defense, so great that the Germans went around it.

Frankly I don't know what these "golden dome" fools are getting on about. It's not clear how dumb they actually are because they are being vague about what "golden dome" even is. Certainly some people think it is an anti-ICBM system (some of the "info" getting to you, clearly) others think it is inspired by Israel's anti-rocket system "Iron Dome" (as clearly some "info" is getting to me). You, however, are the only person I've seen talking about using nukes to take out ICBMs. (It's entirely possible that some are, but I haven't seen it.) As for the fantasy SDI physics of space interceptors, brilliant pebbles, rail guns and space lasers, if someone does propose them I will mock them mercilessly.

Tuur said:
How could a missile defense system be rendered irrelevant?

The same way it always is: interference, deception, overwhelming numbers, and decoys. The defending side is never going to win the air defense battle with an equally resourced opponent since fakes are so much cheaper to deploy than the weapons to take them out.

Hans Blaster · May 24, 2025

Gene2memE said:
Yes. In some ports. INSIDE the port.

At which point, you've got a nuclear weapon either inside or in close proximity to a major metropolitan area. Houston, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York, New Jersey. Take your pick.

If that's not a nightmare enough scenario, how about this: nuclear weapon in the belly of a cargo plane, set to airburst during final approach.

You'd be flabbergasted how easy it would be to disguise it as a cold chain pharmaceutical shipment or a lithium ion battery shipment. For a state-level actor - think Iran or even North Korea - it would be a matter of as little as a handful months to prepare a completely legitimate shipping arrangement via a front corporation.

For example, we could look at the Kerch Bridge bombing. Ukraine sent 20+ tons of explosives from Ukraine, through several other countries in a loop around the Black Sea, into Russia and then over the bridge from Russia to occupied Ukraine where it blew up. That was a lousy traditional explosive and a driver that didn't even know he was hauling a bomb.

2022 Crimean Bridge explosion - Wikipedia

Tuur · May 24, 2025

RDKirk said:
That's why a "gold dome" would make little difference, even less, in protecting the US.

Not really. That's like saying having a military is of no use because of countermeasures. It would work against missile and aircraft. That means an adversary would have to have another delivery system, shorten times for a possible response, or go with something other than nuclear weapons but something that would eliminate the ability for reprisal.

Smuggling in a nuclear weapon to a port or putting it on an aircraft would damage civilian targets. Terrible loss of life. Yet it bring to mind something about the Battle of Britain. The Germans initially targeted military assets for obviously reasons, then shifted to civilian. when military targets proved tougher than they thought. Terrible loss of life but it did nothing much to prevent Britain from defending itself. We all know how that played out.

Having an ABM defense created uncertainty with the big players. Could they be certain that they could eliminate the ability for a retaliatory strike? Can they make an undetectable boomer to park offshore? Can they make a hypersonic weapon that could reach the US before the system activates? Note that undetectable boomers and hypersonic weapons are expensive to develop and make, which puts them out of the reach of the smaller players.

(This is also pretty much the thought in the 1960s, except there were no hypersonic weapons then, and I think the boomers were seen as for retaliatory strikes being they were difficult to track).

A smaller player likely wouldn't be able to have a missile or aircraft get through. This is where speculation about cargo and shipping comes in, but now we're back to what's basically terrorist levels and not a full scale attack. Bad, and likely could trigger a full global nuclear war. But as it stands now, that's our only real response if an adversary like North Korea wanted to do something stupid.

Now, the possibility of limited destruction would be like saying the Maginot Line was completely useless because it couldn't stop, say, a sabotage team. Yet the Maginot Line was formidable enough that the Germans went around it and that was it's weakness. Or rather, the assumption that Germany wouldn't invade another country to get to France.

I'm not about to claim that an ABM system couldn't be defeated on the same level. That said, I don't think defeating it on the same scale the Germans defeated the Maginot Line would be as trivial, Maybe it wouldn't take undetectable boomers and hypersonic weapons. That's where brain storming ways it could be defeated is both interesting and enlightening.

Tuur · May 24, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
The same way it always is: interference, deception, overwhelming numbers, and decoys. The defending side is never going to win the air defense battle with an equally resourced opponent since fakes are so much cheaper to deploy than the weapons to take them out.

(Raises eyebrows):

Battle of Britain ring a bell?

It's interesting that you are critical that we don't know how such a system would work, yet have dismissed that it possibly could. You might even dismiss that we once had working ABMs, So be it. But this oldster remembers when there were ABM systems and that they worked and that it was 1960s tech.

Oh: If you want some fun reading, look up Project Pluto and Dial-A-Yield. Oh, and Atomic Annie, AKA the M65.

RDKirk · May 24, 2025

Tuur said:
Not really. That's like saying having a military is of no use because of countermeasures. It would work against missile and aircraft. That means an adversary would have to have another delivery system, shorten times for a possible response, or go with something other than nuclear weapons but something that would eliminate the ability for reprisal.

Smuggling in a nuclear weapon to a port or putting it on an aircraft would damage civilian targets. Terrible loss of life. Yet it bring to mind something about the Battle of Britain. The Germans initially targeted military assets for obviously reasons, then shifted to civilian. when military targets proved tougher than they thought. Terrible loss of life but it did nothing much to prevent Britain from defending itself. We all know how that played out.

Having an ABM defense created uncertainty with the big players. Could they be certain that they could eliminate the ability for a retaliatory strike? Can they make an undetectable boomer to park offshore? Can they make a hypersonic weapon that could reach the US before the system activates? Note that undetectable boomers and hypersonic weapons are expensive to develop and make, which puts them out of the reach of the smaller players.

(This is also pretty much the thought in the 1960s, except there were no hypersonic weapons then, and I think the boomers were seen as for retaliatory strikes being they were difficult to track).

A smaller player likely wouldn't be able to have a missile or aircraft get through. This is where speculation about cargo and shipping comes in, but now we're back to what's basically terrorist levels and not a full scale attack. Bad, and likely could trigger a full global nuclear war. But as it stands now, that's our only real response if an adversary like North Korea wanted to do something stupid.

Now, the possibility of limited destruction would be like saying the Maginot Line was completely useless because it couldn't stop, say, a sabotage team. Yet the Maginot Line was formidable enough that the Germans went around it and that was it's weakness. Or rather, the assumption that Germany wouldn't invade another country to get to France.

I'm not about to claim that an ABM system couldn't be defeated on the same level. That said, I don't think defeating it on the same scale the Germans defeated the Maginot Line would be as trivial, Maybe it wouldn't take undetectable boomers and hypersonic weapons. That's where brain storming ways it could be defeated is both interesting and enlightening.

Why do you think the Soviet Union never attacked the US? It wasn't because the ABM introduced uncertainty, it was because of the certainty of retaliation. And, btw, the ABM system was never expected to be effective against more than three or four warheads, and then only if they were aimed at specific targets (names of those protected targets are still classified).

If any nation-state (like North Korea or Iran) attacked the US by missile, aircraft, submarine, or ship we will be able to identify who did it and retaliate. It won't matter if the attack is limited or massive...our identification and retaliatory capability doesn't even depend on the National Command Authority surviving. Retaliation is a certainty, and not even Kim Jong Un wants to be the leader of a pile of rubble.

If the attack is by a non-state party in some asymmetric fashion, like that ship with a bomb in it pulling into Boston harbor, then no Iron Dome protection would be possible anyway.

SavedByGrace3 · May 25, 2025

The best defense for the US is to convey to any potential enemy that if they ever dared attack us with nuclear weapons, their country would shortly be a smoldering hole in the ground. I was part of the Combat Targeting Team while in SAC (now called Space Command) in the 70s. Minuteman III Missiles in ND. We were ready to go. You've got 30 minutes to say goodbye. Our motto: "Peace is our Profession." (War is just a hobby.}

RDKirk · May 25, 2025

SavedByGrace3 said:
The best defense for the US is to convey to any potential enemy that if they ever dared attack us with nuclear weapons, their country would shortly be a smoldering hole in the ground. I was part of the Combat Targeting Team while in SAC (now called Space Command) in the 70s. Minuteman III Missiles in ND. We were ready to go. You've got 30 minutes to say goodbye. Our motto: "Peace is our Profession." (War is just a hobby.}

We essentially said the same thing. I may have passed you in the halls of Bldg 500.

Laodicean60 · May 25, 2025

SavedByGrace3 said:
"Peace is our Profession."

Looking back, it was a lie.

RDKirk · May 25, 2025

Laodicean60 said:
Looking back, it was a lie.

We didn't have a nuclear war, though, did we?

Of any military force since--ever--the Strategic Air Command was the military force that most ardently never wanted to carry out their primary mission.

Hans Blaster · May 25, 2025

Tuur said:
(Raises eyebrows):

Battle of Britain ring a bell?

The "battle of Britain" was won by air defense missiles?

Tuur said:
It's interesting that you are critical that we don't know how such a system would work, yet have dismissed that it possibly could.

What is the purpose of Golden Dome? It is not clear. Any version will be ridiculously expensive, most would likely not work. We don't need a big "Iron Dome" to protect us from missile attacks that aren't coming, nor an ABM system for a state-actor assault.

Tuur said:
You might even dismiss that we once had working ABMs, So be it. But this oldster remembers when there were ABM systems and that they worked and that it was 1960s tech.

Oh: If you want some fun reading, look up Project Pluto and Dial-A-Yield. Oh, and Atomic Annie, AKA the M65.

Did they work like Bear Patrol?

Tuur · May 26, 2025

RDKirk said:
Why do you think the Soviet Union never attacked the US? It wasn't because the ABM introduced uncertainty, it was because of the certainty of retaliation. And, btw, the ABM system was never expected to be effective against more than three or four warheads, and then only if they were aimed at specific targets (names of those protected targets are still classified).

If any nation-state (like North Korea or Iran) attacked the US by missile, aircraft, submarine, or ship we will be able to identify who did it and retaliate. It won't matter if the attack is limited or massive...our identification and retaliatory capability doesn't even depend on the National Command Authority surviving. Retaliation is a certainty, and not even Kim Jong Un wants to be the leader of a pile of rubble.

If the attack is by a non-state party in some asymmetric fashion, like that ship with a bomb in it pulling into Boston harbor, then no Iron Dome protection would be possible anyway.

The entire ABM system was effective against more that three or four warheads. Trying to recall if MIRVs came before or after. Anyway, a nuclear warhead on an ABM was essentially an atomic flak round. No one back then counted on a one-to-one intercept.

You are right: the Soviets never attacked the US because of MAD. I suspect the US never attacked the USSR for the same reason. All that said, I recall claims that ABMs were "oh so terribly destabilizing." Why? "Everyone will build more to try to overwhelm it." Never mind that was precisely the situation without ABMs: build more so that you could overwhelm your opponent's ability for a reprisal strike. So the only option without ABMs was to launch your own strike as soon as one was detected. Which, it turns out, the Soviets almost did at least once due to misinterpreted readings in their early warning systems. Of course, we the public didn't know about that until after the USSR fell.

That's the problem with MAD: It's all or nothing.

I'm afraid I'm not much for arguments that if something isn't a universal panacea, it isn't worth doing. I respectfully submit most here aren't, whether they support or oppose ABMs. How many of us got a COVID vaccine even through it isn't 100% effective?

Tuur · May 26, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
The "battle of Britain" was won by air defense missiles?

First you argue that no nation has won an air war without superior resources, then you try to shift the argument to ABMs. What do you want to argue about? Whether a nation has one an air war without superior resources, or about ABMs.

I would bid you to have a nice day, but I'm just not in the mood.

RDKirk · May 26, 2025

Tuur said:
The entire ABM system was effective against more that three or four warheads. Trying to recall if MIRVs came before or after.

My point was that only three or four potential US targets were protected by the ABM system, and not even they would have been protected against the succession of attacks we expected for those targets.

Tuur said:
Anyway, a nuclear warhead on an ABM was essentially an atomic flak round. No one back then counted on a one-to-one intercept.

Those incoming warheads would not arrive at the same time (like some sort of barrage) because they'd merely destroy each other (called "fratricide"). They would arrive in succession. For instance, we predicted about 25 nuclear warheads were aimed at SAC headquarters, striking over the course of several hours. The ABM was not going to be able to handle that, and we knew it.

It was an extremely limited protection system. Protecting a small area like Israel is far easier than protecting the United States landmass.

Tuur said:
You are right: the Soviets never attacked the US because of MAD. I suspect the US never attacked the USSR for the same reason. All that said, I recall claims that ABMs were "oh so terribly destabilizing." Why? "Everyone will build more to try to overwhelm it." Never mind that was precisely the situation without ABMs: build more so that you could overwhelm your opponent's ability for a reprisal strike. So the only option without ABMs was to launch your own strike as soon as one was detected. Which, it turns out, the Soviets almost did at least once due to misinterpreted readings in their early warning systems. Of course, we the public didn't know about that until after the USSR fell.

That's the problem with MAD: It's all or nothing.

I'm afraid I'm not much for arguments that if something isn't a universal panacea, it isn't worth doing. I respectfully submit most here aren't, whether they support or oppose ABMs. How many of us got a COVID vaccine even through it isn't 100% effective?

"MAD" was never an actual military strategy, that was just something some politicians and pundits kicked around.
The military nuclear strategy was never "all or nothing."
We planned for multiple levels of nuclear combat, and planned for the ability to continue to fight even after the Major Attack Option.

SavedByGrace3 · May 26, 2025

Well, it was just

Laodicean60 said:
Looking back, it was a lie.

Well, it was just a "profession."

Iron Dome for the US - Is this dangerous?

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Newbie

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

On August Recess

On August Recess

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

On August Recess

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)

Similar threads