Hacker News Reader

Comment by devwastaken | Hacker News Reader

Nobody asks how many anti nuke missiles. :)

Enough to counter anything launched from North Korea towards the US and that's about it. Having enough anti-nuke missiles to shoot down every one means that it's feasible you could win a first strike, which is not conductive to stable nuclear relations

Funny enough, I know a little bit about this one. We have them, but they are all come-from-behind missiles, so the launch site has to be as close to Russia (or wherever) as possible, which angers the Russians.

The head-on hit-a-bullet-with-another-bullet-is missile still impossible, although many would like us to believe they are already here. Nuh uh.

Plus those are still useless against nukes delivered inside ton of cocaine.

Your contention is that GMD, THAAD, PAC-3 and Arrow are essentially expensive fireworks? Interesting. Russia and Iran will be delighted to hear that in fact their ballistic missiles were not intercepted.

BMc2020: "I would have to be a complete nut to say Hitler was a great man."

amenhotep: "You said Hitler was a great man."

I suspect in other contexts you're aware of this, but personal attacks generally don't land well here. Consider continuing to focus on making important points well, as that tends to work better, as does assuming the best when someone disagrees with you, since sometimes that's a sign your comment can be legitimately interpreted or read in ways you didn't expect or intend.

He was trying to put words in my mouth and got caught.

You were making claims that a particular technology does not work, and the other poster was ribbing you by playing along with that thought in a way that suggests the technology actually does exist and works. They did not put words into your mouth, but they did give specific examples of technology to highlight their point.

While an ICBM is a ballistic missile, the trajectory is far far higher than the usual short- to medium-range ballistic missiles. Velocity at the receiving end of the trajectory will be far higher. Visibility into the trajectory will be worse, because of the huge range and the earth being "in the way".

That's incorrect, boost-phase or inflight head-on interception is the norm. In fact it's easier and more efficient than trying a pursuit interception.

https://world-defense.com/threads/thaad-terminal-high-altitu...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense

The GP specifically referred to head-on interception, when the missile is coming down towards its target. This is midcourse interception, when the missile is drifting horizontally from the launch site to the target.

It's still head on interception. Indeed interception at any stage of flight is head on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com