2007-03-14 08:47:16 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
There are several ways to deliver a nuke, though currently only a few countries actually have the means and ability to fire an ICBM. The concern today is that it is feasible to deliver a nuclear device in a container, or by smuggling it across the border. While America has been spending billions on their proposed Missile Defense System, it is not yet an effective means to stop or destroy an enemy missile. At the present time, there isn't any means for a country to intercept an incoming missile, and as currently configured the chances of interdicting an explosive device in a container or one smuggled across the border is extremely limited.
2007-03-14 08:57:18 · answer #1 · answered by Sailinlove 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
They can't (at least not yet). The reason we never had Soviet MRV's raining down on New York and L.A during the Cold war was because of MAD...
Mutually Assured Destruction.
The Soviets knew that if they launched we could shoot back and cause just as much destruction(later discovered to be more destruction) to them.
Kept everyone in check for the last few decades.
There are plans on the table for weapons that can intercept ad destroy ICBM's but although some are in the final stages of development, none are fielded yet.
2007-03-14 16:10:50 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your best bet is to shoot it down and hope it doesn't have a failsafe system to prematurely detonate. Even still, shooting it down is a difficult, if not impossible task. Our missile defense system tests are pretty sorry, and those are trying to take down known missiles at scheduled times.
Ultimately, there is little you can do to defend, that's why the MAD tactic was such a popular idea, that you couldn't just nuke someone without getting nuked back.
2007-03-14 15:58:33 · answer #3 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
so simple if the missile is hasnt become so close to the city and herez how it goes an antimissile ,A missile is launched ( which has a faster speed than the nuke coming towards the city) probably the result the detonation of the nuke would be in the ocean instead of on land
2007-03-14 15:55:39 · answer #4 · answered by smearenstien 1 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Since they can't stop the nuke they launch a bunch of other nukes at the guy who launched the nukes just for revenge and payback.
2007-03-14 15:54:16 · answer #5 · answered by A question or two... 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Ronald Reagan proposed the "Star Wars" technology over 20 years ago. If we haven't been secretly building it, the fault is ours.
How about using some of the captured UFO technology?
2007-03-14 15:51:40 · answer #6 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
i just wander about some answers,
when US nuke japan (2x) some of you suggest that they should have strike you back? And you suggest a strike even harder???
US people are so selfish sometime
2007-03-14 16:11:10 · answer #7 · answered by danrouthier 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
By then, it's too late.
All that can be done - assuming there's no missile defense system - is to strike back so hard that no one will ever dare attack like that again.
2007-03-14 16:00:15 · answer #8 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Shoot back, I call it the blowfish tactic. We are dead no matter what so take them with us.
2007-03-14 15:49:35 · answer #9 · answered by Memnoch 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋