warheads

The physics start to work if you decide to use nuclear weapons to shoot down incoming warheads.

The detonation won't physically destroy the incoming warheads, but the radiation flux can destroy their electronics.

If a rogue nation has 60 nuclear warheads, it's hardly going to waste them to take out 60 navigation satellites.

S., all warheads are currently sent to Pantex in Amarillo, Texas for decomm or refurb.

While he never told me, it was later declassified that the talos missiles he fired, could be fitted with nuclear warheads.

It's really more a case of guidance systems for early anti-aircraft missiles were fairly unreliable so nuclear warheads were tried because A.

An antiballistic-missle that kind-of-sort-of can destroy warheads with kinetic energy, is actually quite effective if you strap a powerful nuke onto it.

That would require around 270 000 nuclear warheads to cover every square km.

We're a bit ahead, which isn't saying much considering its trivial to launch enough dummy warheads to outstrip our abilities and fool our interceptors.

It's always been more of an infected blanket than nuclear warheads.

Another option is to use nuclear warheads on the interceptor.

I'm pretty sure if the first atomic warheads had been 10 or even 100 times the size they still would have been used.

That is why most research is geared towards having a "kill vehicle" destroy the warheads (as opposed to something like space based lasers, or railgun, etc).

"the damages are rather underwelming" Not sure I would agree with that - a single 800kt detonation over Manhattan looks pretty bad to me and a realistic attack would probably have had many tens of warheads used.

> 1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US." > 1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres tells French TV that Iran was set to have nuclear warheads by 1999.