Nuclear Explosions in Space to stop Nuclear Missiles

Missile Defense has been a big thing over the past decades to one day stop Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. (ICBMs)Today's Missile Defense system is limited and the only defense against ICBMs is Mutually Assured Destruction. But that may change in the future.

Early programs like Nike Zeus relied on nuclear explosions while the missile reentered the atmosphere. Nuclear explosions in space were proposed during Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" program, but EMP from upper atmosphere explosion might damage satellites of the Star Wars programs. However today's military satellites and ground radars can very shielded against EMP unless they were very close to the blast. US Missile Defense still relies on kinetic kill vehicles to physically slam in the warhead.
But in a full out nuclear war, can a nuclear missile be used to stop another nuclear missile if it was in accurate proximity?(lets say 200-1000 meters, accuracy range for most ICBMs)

However, nuclear warheads can be shielded as well. Nukes are not very damaging heat and shock wise in space since there is no atmosphere to deliver that massive heat cloud, nor is their air to make that big shock wave. What greatly increases is radiation, but are they damaging enough? How resilient can a metal case be to nuke radiation, especially if they need thrusters and holes to maneuvers?

Also does it produce a small blast and fireball at least in a couple hundred of meters for lets say a 500 Kiloton warhead?
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,553
1,682
Nukes are not very damaging heat and shock wise in space since there is no atmosphere to deliver that massive heat cloud
The bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki produced a great amount of radiative thermal energy that initiate fires, or burned people, well before the shock wave reached them.

http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230004.html
http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230006.html

What greatly increases is radiation, but are they damaging enough?
Yield and distance. The higher the yield, and the shorter the distance, the more thermal and ionizing radiation from the source to the target.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,553
1,682
No I am talking about nuclear explosions in space. There is no atmosphere in space so little thermal radiation.
This is incorrect.

How does sunlight warm the earth since it must travel through space (1.4960×1011 m)?

How does a radiative heat element in a vacuum heat an object to the same temperature?
 
This is incorrect.

How does sunlight warm the earth since it must travel through space (1.4960×1011 m)?

How does a radiative heat element in a vacuum heat an object to the same temperature?
Yeah thanks for the correction. What about the blast since there is no air or little air?

Also most nuclear explosions generate heat hotter than sun correct? How does it compare a warhead designed for atmospheric reentry?
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,553
1,682
What about the blast since there is no air or little air?
The blast in space (which comes from the vaporization of the warhead) would not amount to much unless the detonation was very close to the target. Otherwise, it's the radiative thermal energy (from the high temperature) and ionizing radiation (X-ray and gamma ray) from the fissioning or fusing material that does the damage.

Any object traveling through the earth's atmosphere at high speed (supersonic or hypersonic) require special designs and materials.
See for example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)

Also most nuclear explosions generate heat hotter than sun correct?
Surface of the sun is about 5,778 K. Compare that to the melting point of the tungsten (3695 K) or a substance made using hafnium, tantalum and carbon (Hf-N-C), which melts at a temperature of 3,526°C (3799 K). At such temperature, one would need a special heat shield like those used on the Space Shuttle or Mercury/Gemini/Apollo capsules.
 
The blast in space (which comes from the vaporization of the warhead) would not amount to much unless the detonation was very close to the target. Otherwise, it's the radiative thermal energy (from the high temperature) and ionizing radiation (X-ray and gamma ray) from the fissioning or fusing material that does the damage.

Any object traveling through the earth's atmosphere at high speed (supersonic or hypersonic) require special designs and materials.
See for example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)
Since you can't really start fires in space, do metals just melt from the heat? How atmospheric reentry heat compare to nuclear radiation heat?
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,553
1,682
Since you can't really start fires in space, do metals just melt from the heat? How atmospheric reentry heat compare to nuclear radiation heat?
A lot depends on how much radiative heat and ionizing radiation is present. The ionizing radiation also causes heating as it penetrates material (e.g., gamma heating). With respect to the second question, one should research the temperature profile for the Space Shuttle or Apollo capsule as it passes through the earth's atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_thermal_protection_system


There is an international treaty to which nations agree not to detonate nuclear weapons in space.
 
A lot depends on how much radiative heat and ionizing radiation is present. The ionizing radiation also causes heating as it penetrates material (e.g., gamma heating). With respect to the second question, one should research the temperature profile for the Space Shuttle or Apollo capsule as it passes through the earth's atmosphere.
I did research and a nuclear blast can be 100,000,000° Celsius from the fireball. The Space shuttle design is for temperatures of around 1600 C.

But is the diameter of the heat blast greater in space due to lack of atmosphere to stop the thermal radiation?

Are you ionizing radiation produces heat? Since X-rays for example do heat up the human body.
 

Simon Bridge

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
17,823
1,637
Stationing Nukes in orbit as a shield just creates an arms race to counter the countermeasures or find other ways to get the nukes to the target.
Assessing the effectiveness of countermeasures on the current crop of strategic weapons is short sighted, but one could use it as an exercise to anticipate the next development.

Have you researched orbital weapons? There were a bunch of morbidly entertaining ideas around during the cold war.
I think Edward Teller used to lecture on using nukes to defend against nukes... look up "SDI".

One would hope that ICBMs are hardened against the sorts of conditions likely in a nuclear war ... if a nation's ability to reach the target depended on their ability to strike first, that would be very unsettling. It is, of course, difficult to get good information about the ability of ICBM's to withstand radiation and EMP etc.

Shockwave in space discussion here:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17957/would-a-high-explosive-in-a-vacuum-be-less-harmful

Thermal radiation through space:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
(there must be a better one)
Consider: how big is the fireball (the surface of which has the referenced temperature), how big, therefore, is the radius at which significant damage would be done to the type of target expected?
Now... how big is space?
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,553
1,682
100,000,000° Celsius from the fireball
That is small volume just after detonation. In fractions of a second, that volume expands rapidly and the energy per unit volume decreases rapidly.

X-rays (coming from atomic electrons) have energies in the low (100 eV - 100 keV) range, as compared to gammas (from nuclear reactions) that have energies in the high (100s) keV and MeV range, so X-rays don't penetrate metal as well as gammas.

The effects of a nuclear detonation depend on the yield (and type of reaction fission or fusion, or combination) and the distance from the detonation.
 
Stationing Nukes in orbit as a shield just creates an arms race to counter the countermeasures or find other ways to get the nukes to the target.
Assessing the effectiveness of countermeasures on the current crop of strategic weapons is short sighted, but one could use it as an exercise to anticipate the next development.

Have you researched orbital weapons? There were a bunch of morbidly entertaining ideas around during the cold war.
I think Edward Teller used to lecture on using nukes to defend against nukes... look up "SDI".

One would hope that ICBMs are hardened against the sorts of conditions likely in a nuclear war ... if a nation's ability to reach the target depended on their ability to strike first, that would be very unsettling. It is, of course, difficult to get good information about the ability of ICBM's to withstand radiation and EMP etc.
I am saying using an Nuclear ABM to stop a ICBM, not stationing a nuke on satellite. That would be too deescalating. Orbital nukes have one problem. Hacking. You need some sort of computer device to release it.
ICBM fleets are HIGHLY regulated using very old technology to prevent any sort of outside contact. You wouldn't want to put the destruction of mandkind on something that could be hacked or glitched.

From what I know nukes usually detonate individually over an area through MIRV, you never want to explode them together.
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"Nuclear Explosions in Space to stop Nuclear Missiles" You must log in or register to reply here.

Related Threads for: Nuclear Explosions in Space to stop Nuclear Missiles

  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
42
Views
18K
  • Posted
2
Replies
41
Views
27K
Replies
30
Views
9K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
591
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
1K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top