Honest question, but anti missile defenses don't really work (see iron dome) against traditional missiles and there is no effective way to defend against ICBMs. So what's the value of a low flying, fast missile that can't be shot down compared to a high flying, slow missile that is cheaper and also can't really be shot down?

[–] nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I would say western anti missile defenses don't really work because their chief opponents have superior weapons. ICBMs can be intercepted, because their terminal path is predictable although fast. Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea all have hypersonic weapons that have the capacity to make significant trajectory alterations at hypersonic speeds in their terminal path. They cannot be intercepted.

[–] gay_king_prince_charles@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago

I would say western anti missile defenses don't really work because their chief opponents have superior weapons

The Iron Dome, the magnum opus of western middle defense systems regularly fails to intercept unguided, subsonic rockets that are incapable of taking evasive action. I would not say that the Iron Dome fails because Hamas has superior missiles, it fails because shooting a bullet with a bullet is a near impossible task. Also, ICBM interception is close to a fantasy right now. The GMD works around 40% of the time in tests, the arrow 3 does not work at all, the A-235 has only been tested a few times (not in real world conditions either), and China doesn't have an anti ICBM system at all.