intercontinental balistic missiles?

Question

Is it possible for the united kingdom to protect its self against an in coming intercontinental balistic missiles ??

Answer 1

At the present time no.

The US is currently working a system designed to take out ICBM's but is many years away from making it work.

Their idea is to have a system of satellites that would detect the imense heat given off by a launch. Hitting the missile here is impossible as the rocket takes less than two minutes to reach the outer earth.

while travelling on at the very edge of the earth is where the missile is most vulnerable. This phase lasts about twenty minutes. The US is working on making lasers powerful enough to concentrate a beam of light so powerful, that it would physically melt the ICBM. This is the main problem as they just cant make the lasers powerful enough.

failing that they have missiles that could attempt to hit the ICBM upon re-entry, but the main problem here is that

A. once they have re-entered they travel so fast they reach the ground within 30seconds

B. ICBM's carry multiple warheads which all split and head in different directions.

Personally I dont think it will ever work, as demonstrated by China on Jan 19th satellites are vulnerable to missiles, since the whole defence is based upon information gained from satellites, any ICBM attack would follow an attack on the satellites first.

Answer 2

No it is not. An ABM (anti ballistic missile) system is just too inaccurate for starters, you may be able to get 90% or more hits, but 1 will always slip through the cordon. The other problem is distance from target and warning. The US is in a position that it would have plenty of warning of any attack due to its isolation and distance from any current Hostiles. The UK has problems that an ICBM fired from a Hostile currently would take half the time or less to arrive.
So unless the ICBM is fired from the Pacific area, we would not have the time to alert, track, fire and intercept a missile, especially if it was a Nuclear capable warhead.
Also there is the other problem of the ABM treaties we have signed to.

Answer 3

The US has offered to place parts of our Ballistic Missile Defense system on British soil.

Right now US anti-missile technology is ahead of a potential enemy's penetration aid technology. The only real way to overcome our system is to fire more missiles than we have interceptors. This plays into our hands because interceptor missiles are cheaper than ICBMs. And once we start deploying interceptor missiles with multiple independently targetable warheads - the scales fall even further in our favor.

Remember that the goal of missile defense is not to actually stop the missiles. The idea is to make the costs of a credible ICBM force so high that it is not worth the expense.

Answer 4

A good portion of the systems deployed by the USA have a calculation of time and distance included (the size of the Oceans and or the Whole North pole distance). Some ICBMs travel faster and the launch site is critical. Hence the danger of subs, the closer the less likely any Anti Missile Missile is to be effective. Considering the Size of the UK is another factor in the calculation, 2 ICBM's or 200?

Answer 5

If one of the most primative balistic missiles is the Scud and in Gulf War 1 we could only knock about 60 to 70% down. What chance do you think we have against anything remotely decent. When you hear the three minute warning just get smashed and have a game of catch the missile.

Answer 6

I.C.B.M's are fired on mass...about thirty to a hundred at a time...
this is what governments like to called indirect percentage warfare...they know that there are very few systems to block I.C.B.M's .....
there are guidance scramblers but if the missile has already found its path back-up or 'dull' systems take over and guide the missile in to its target...
A.M.S's or Anti missile sites...offer some protection but are only 90% efficient meaning that out of a hundred, ten will still make it through...
America has boasted that it has Z.S.L's or Zap sat laser systems but this has never been proved and acts more as a deterrent...
the only sure defence against I.C.B.M's are Nuclear weapons....
a country will not fire I.C.B.M's at a power that has nukes and could wipe them out...
effectively the only sure defence and that is deterrents....

Answer 7

Not at the moment no.

The U.S. has been trying to develop a 'star wars' missile defence system since the mid 80's and although they have a little success, they have not been able to intercept a missile.

This is not surprising seeing an ICBM reaches many thousands of miles per hour in its trajectory, and if its heading towards a target it will present a target of a few feet in diameter travelling at 4KM per second. That's without taking it account multiple war heads, dummy warheads, decoy balloons, and 'chaff'.

I wouldn't rule anything out for the future, and the U.S. are investing a lot of money in 'son of star wars' at the moment, but the maths seems impossible.

Answer 8

By the time any country finally develops a good defense against ICBMs, another country like Russia will have an effective counter against that counter. Russia is already looking to expand its ICBM technology to overcome anything the US is creating in ABM technology in the next few years. This is one reason why some are worried about a second cold war.

Answer 9

No - thats why Blair is angling to get Bush to base some new systems here ........... that'll save a few ££££

Answer 10

Hmmm. There are methods and defense systems deployed by NATO forces, but research is still being conducted.