Nuclear Explosions in Space to stop Nuclear Missiles

In summary, missile defense has been a significant focus in recent decades to prevent intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from causing harm. However, the current missile defense system is limited and the only defense against ICBMs is Mutually Assured Destruction. In the future, this may change with advancements in technology. Early programs such as Nike Zeus relied on nuclear explosions in space, but this was deemed too dangerous due to the potential damage to satellites and radars. Today, the US relies on kinetic kill vehicles to physically stop the warhead of an ICBM. However, in a full-scale nuclear war, the effectiveness of this method is questionable as warheads can also be shielded. Nukes in space are not as damaging in
  • #1
Armed Update
13
0
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 let's say a 500 Kiloton warhead?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
Armed Update said:
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

Armed Update said:
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.
 
  • #3
  • #4
Armed Update said:
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?
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
  • #5
Astronuc said:
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?
 
  • #6
Armed Update said:
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)

Armed Update said:
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.
 
  • #7
Astronuc said:
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?
 
  • #8
Armed Update said:
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_systemThere is an international treaty to which nations agree not to detonate nuclear weapons in space.
 
  • #9
Astronuc said:
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.
 
  • #10
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?
 
  • #11
Armed Update said:
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.
 
  • #12
Simon Bridge said:
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.
 

What is a nuclear explosion in space to stop nuclear missiles?

A nuclear explosion in space, also known as a high altitude nuclear explosion, is a detonation of a nuclear weapon at a high altitude above the Earth's surface. This is done in order to intercept and destroy incoming nuclear missiles from other countries.

How does a nuclear explosion in space stop nuclear missiles?

When a nuclear weapon is detonated in space, it creates a powerful electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that can disrupt or destroy electronic equipment, including the guidance systems of nuclear missiles. This makes them unable to reach their intended target, effectively stopping them from causing harm.

Are there any risks associated with using nuclear explosions in space?

Yes, there are potential risks and consequences to using nuclear explosions in space. These include the possibility of radioactive fallout and the potential for escalation of conflict with other countries. Additionally, the use of nuclear weapons in any capacity is highly controversial and raises ethical concerns.

Has a nuclear explosion in space ever been used to stop nuclear missiles?

No, a nuclear explosion in space has never been used to stop nuclear missiles in a real-world scenario. However, there have been several tests conducted by different countries to explore the feasibility and effectiveness of this method.

What are some alternative methods for stopping nuclear missiles?

There are various alternative methods for stopping nuclear missiles, including traditional missile defense systems such as interceptors and lasers, as well as new technologies like directed energy weapons and hypersonic missiles. Diplomatic efforts, such as arms control agreements, can also play a role in preventing the use of nuclear weapons.

Similar threads

  • Nuclear Engineering
2
Replies
42
Views
19K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
31
Views
16K
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
932
Back
Top