jklinders said:
Guardian of Nekops said:
What we really need to do is set up a global system capable of shooting down nuclear weapons, from anywhere, heading to anywhere.
I mean, haven't we all sort of decided that these things were a bad idea, and that the only reason we want to have them is to be able to scare the other guys into not using theirs?
So yeah, just shoot the damn things down whenever they take off. Hell, have it automatically shoot down every rocket or thing that looks like a rocket and isn't on the flight plan approved by the UN.
We aren't going to convince people to destroy their nuclear arsenals due to fear of everyone else, but we CAN make them useless. And we should. Let the damn things rot in their silos, or reduce them to something that has to be delivered by hand.
That way, at least maybe we'd have to discover a new form of energy to blow ourselves up with. Should buy us a minute or two, anyway.
Nice idea but it is pretty useless against the so called suitcase bombs. Someone could still smuggle the crap in somehow somewhere and detonate it. Not as devastating as an aerial detonation to be sure but still bad. Even more useless against cruise missiles which hug the ground and can be armed with at least tactical nukes and have ranges of hundreds of miles. This is a pipe dream for reasons that were made clear in my youth when the Star Wars program collapsed.
Also technologically unfeasible without further weaponizing of space which most folks agree is bad in itself.
Suitcase nukes are fine. They destroy a city, can potentially be stopped by law enforcement, and require a LOT of suicidal maniacs to kill us all. A lot of coordinated suicidal maniacs with access to thousands of nuclear warheads, which I think is suitably unlikely. Right now we only need one guy with one nuke to push some country over the edge, and boom. Missiles flying to every civilized nation on Earth, global death in 12 minutes.
Cruise missiles, at least, have a limited range and smaller warheads. And base platforms which are near to hand and can be destroyed. Again, this does nothing to protect New York or any other city, but that's a different problem. You don't refrain from wearing a bullet proof vest just because it doesn't protect you from being hit by a truck.
Point is, our current "system" doesn't protect New York, either. It just dooms every other city to share it's fate within the hour, as a sort of stupid threat that I pray will fall apart the first time some poor soul has to push the button.
The Star Wars program fell apart, in large part, due to international fear that one country would use both a nuclear shield and nuclear weapons to defy MAD and destroy the others. It fell apart because it would weaponize space for the good of some, rather than the good of all, and would put the rest of the world in greater danger. It fell apart for fear that other contries would rebel against it, attacking before the shield was up... in short, because it was a national shield rather than an international one.
Again, I can't think of a worse system than the one we currently have. Using the threat of global destruction to protect ourselves, with multiple alliances and factions and possibe dummy countries doing the deed and taking the fall for the others... it can only lead to death for us all, or at best a failure to achieve vengance. We need a better way.