> > Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to just assemble massive arsenals of bombs
> > which are exploded in-situ?
>
> Edward Teller proposed just such a system. Nicknamed it the backyard
> weapon: if you get enough fusionable material to explode, you will nuke
> the whole world, so why bother hauling it elsewhere? Set it up in your
> own back yard.
>
I would think that this tactic would be particularly effective with
countries such as India and Pakistan. They can't really be under the
impression that they can nuke each other without completely cremating
themselves, can they? It's like throwing a grenade at someone in an
elevator. Not so clever.
> > How about this: What happens if your nuclear-armed ICBMs are designed to
Emlyn the Destroyer
> > blow up if they are about to be hit by a THAAD? So, even if your 5000
> THAADs
> > do effectively take out 1000 nuclear missiles, the lot of them explode
> in
> > the atmosphere. That can't be good.
>
> Ja, but as it turns out, it is not easy to ignite a nuke. If there is
> much
> damage
> done to the reentry vehicle, the warhead will most likely be destroyed
> without
> detonating. I dont see how a missile could be set up to see a THAAD
> coming in, or at least not very feasibly. Too fast. And, the THAAD takes
> out its quarry way up there, above most of the atmosphere. spike
>
>
How about a scheme where a whole bunch of missiles (10? 100?) works
together. A couple get destroyed, the rest get trigger-happy.