Is it possible to intercede a nuclear missle without catastrophic results?

Answer 1

Yes. Even though a nuclear weapon is produces catastrophic destruction when armed and detonated. It is extremely safe to handle and transport and therefore it is a benign threat when on course to its target. So if a nuclear missile was shot down there would be a tiny explosion in the air and it would fall to the surface. The only issue would be radiation from the uranium which when compared to nuclear detonation is a minimal consequence.

Answer 2

First of all, I think that this is an excellent question. I did my college thesis on sdi. Second, how do you qualify catastrophic? Meaning: if we hit the target in the atmosphere catastrophic or the taget wiping out a city catastrophic? There have been numerous atomic tests in the world in the past, not to make light of it at all. So, the event of us destroying the target missile in the air will most likely not effect us at all. Regionally its area could be affected, but as long as it is not in the stratosphere and assuming the munition is small in size, only the former soviet states have large munitions as well as China which only has a few, who would actually be a threat to us. To let you know we have some defense capabilities at the present and in light of present events the future systems will most likely be far superior. We have interdictory missile systems that the LAST I HEARD HAD A 50% HIT OR MISS RATIO. Laser systems are now being added to the inventory to prove a better target acquisition weapon. Check the web for "anti-ballistic missile systems" or "747+laser" WHAT WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH IS HOW TO KEEP THEM FROM PUTING IT ON AN AIRPLINE OR OTHER TRANSPORT.

Answer 3

More or less.

First, most nuclear warheads will only go off if the detonator is activated. Those are generally set to go off with a very specific trigger, and if that trigger isn't matched it'll just be destroyed. Now, destroying the missile is liable to spreading radioactive material all over the place, but a few months of cleanup duty sounds pretty good compared to a city transformed in a glass crater.

However, it would involved a system able to intercept that missile. ICBM's are just too fast to be easily taken out, as was proven in the last few years by the US' missile defence program. However, SRBM's and MRBM's are a lot slower and fly a lot lower, just as cruise missiles do, and several sea-babed systems such as ESSM's and SM-2's, or even the CIWS, could destroy or shred the missile, while on land the Patriot or the Roland could probably do it as well. But that is uncertain at best.

Answer 4

Depends on what you consider a catastrophe.

A nuclear bomb does not go off in the same way a conventional one. If you blow up a regular bomb with another, this will tend to set off the explosive of the target bomb.

A nuclear bomb needs a complex set of events to occur to set of the nuclear explosive.

So, the question I think you are asking is, if you manage to blow up a nuclear missle, before it reaches it's target, will it set of the nuclear bomb?

The answer is no. In fact, it very much IS possible to hit incoming missles with defensive missles. It's not easy, but it is possible. Because it is hard, no one can claim that WE can stop all of THEIR missles from strikeing their targets.

Still pretty scarey.

But the real risk of blowing up a nuclear bomb, of missle, as it comes in is that the explosion will turn loose that substantial bit of radioactive material that is in the bomb. That material is usually plutonium. Plutonium is a DEADLY substance, and it takes only a microscopic amount, entering a person's lungs, for example to eventually kill that one person. Blowing up a bomb will scatter teeny bits of plutonium all over the place. If it goes off in the upper atmosphere, the bits of plutonium can travel great distances before it finally settles down.

So, the result of hitting one missle will not be catastrophic in the sense of a whole city becomeing a fused slag heap of radioactive glass, with tens of thousands of peopley dying in one instantaneous flash. But it can be catastrophic in the sense of dozens, hundreds, perhaps even thousands of people dying a slow, painful death.

I hope this helps. Have a nice day.

Answer 5

If it's not, this whole star war thing is a big waste of time, unless it can be downed in a remote part of the ocean where populations are least affected. But, there's still the issue of fall out and radiation poisoning, etc.

The chances are pretty good that an explosion can be avoided if a missile is destroyed before it reaches it's destination. The timing mechanism, along with many precision parts would not be able to do the job they are designed to do, to effect detonation.

Answer 6

We've fumbled a few 'broken arrows' in the past, the most well known one was the mishap near Spain decades ago. Like the answerer stated above, the device would need to be detonated or 'triggered' as they say. An explosion or interdiction by our missile defense would not be enough to detonate a nuclear explosion. Regarding the 'catastrophic' portion of your question, i'm presuming you're talking about strategic nukes (in the 500k range) and not the tactical ones?

Answer 7

Yes, a nuclear missle has a strict set of phenomenon that must occur when it goes nuclear. If that is interrupted, it will leak radiation where it was interrupted, but the nuclear blast will not occur. Simialr to convential weapons and the patrior missle system. If you destory the flight/support systems of the missle, it will not be able to trigger properly.

Answer 8

Yes, if it is intercepted it will be destroyed with little impact. A nuke uses convention explosives to start the reaction for a big explosion. Just before a nuke hits it target it will arm itself, so if it is intercepted before this it will essentially be inert except for its radioactive components and its conventional explosives. So our intercept rocket will cause the missle to blow up Thus igniting its conventional explosives but the nuclear reaction will never take place. So, a bit of uranium will be scattered but nothing like if it hit its target and reacted.

Answer 9

First define intercede.

Second, the answer would be yes. However, the chances of not causing at least a radiation leak are very small. The missile is not armed until somewhere in flight, therefore destroying it before it has a chance to arm itself is possible. But if you were to crack the case that contained the radioactive material inside the missile, which is very great if you destroyed the missile itself, would cause Radiation to leak, hence harming the environment, possible for years to come.

Answer 10

It may be possible. Depending on the mechanism of the nuclear missile, it may be possible to shoot it down using conventional explosives, without triggering the nuclear chain reaction.

If this was successful however, it would produce some nuclear fallout from the destroyed weapon. (Similar to a 'dirty bomb' which is a conventional explosive that contains radioactive material but doesn't use a nuclear explosion.)