upvote

points

by JumpCrisscross9 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby ohjimny22 hours ago|
next
[-]
The difference between shooting down a conventionally armed missile and shooting down a nuclear armed missile is that the former will explode in the air or not at all, whereas the latter is quite likely to still be able to detonate when it hits the ground.
reply
upvoteby JumpCrisscross2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> whereas the latter is quite likely to still be able to detonate when it hits the ground

If they’re using a novel, supercritical core mechanism, maybe. Otherwise, unlikely. (You would get fallout instead.)

reply
upvoteby JumpCrisscross2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> whereas the latter is quite likely to still be able to detonate when it hits the ground

If they’re using a novel, supercritical core mechanism, maybe. Otherwise, unlikely.

reply
upvoteby Cyph0n8 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
And on the off chance this defense doesn’t work? No system is perfect. Put another way, would the risk calculation for an attack on Iran be as easy as it is right now?

The point of having nuclear capabilities is to make the risk calculation more difficult. It doesn’t mean you need to have state of the art capabilities.

reply
upvoteby JumpCrisscross8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> on the off chance this defense doesn’t work? No system is perfect

Someone in the Middle East gets hit.

> would the risk calculation for an attack on Iran be as easy as it is right now?

The risk calculation isn't easy today. Nukes would make it harder. But I'm pushing back on the notion that it would make it a non-starter.

(MAD arsenals and long-range ICBMs, on the other hand, make it a non-starter.)

reply
upvoteby c0nducktr8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Someone in the Middle East gets hit.

Wow so no big deal then right?

Jesus Christ dude

reply
upvoteby JumpCrisscross7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> so no big deal then right?

Are you arguing it would be in this White House?

reply