[rmmcdaniell]

These interceptors we have now use conventional explosives? right?

Would they not be more effective if they had nuclear tips? I hope we are not hobbling our missle defense because we could not test such nuclear-tipped interceptors on account of the atmospheric test ban treaty.

[tarator]

These interceptors we have now use conventional explosives? right?

I don't think they use any explosives. The interceptor actually collides with the target.

[neverdem]

tarator is correct. These are kinetic energy kill vehicles.

[El Gato]

These interceptors we have now use conventional explosives? right? Would they not be more effective if they had nuclear tips? I hope we are not hobbling our missle defense because we could not test such nuclear-tipped interceptors on account of the atmospheric test ban treaty.

We once deployed (part of) a system that used nuclear armed interceptors. It was around 1970. It consisted of a short range missile (Sprint) and a long range missile (Spartan). The whole system went by various names, Safeguard being one of them.The missiles were housed in underground silos. The atmospheric test ban treaty did indeed kill the system, along with the usual left wing "Ban the (American) Bomb" types.

See Stanley R. Mickelsen Safeguard Complex unofficial site for more information.

[familyop]

"These interceptors we have now use conventional explosives? right?"

No. They had to be built to hit with kinetic energy (collision) to avoid pre-detection and prevent detonation.

[ArrogantBustard]

These interceptors we have now use conventional explosives? right?
No. No explosives at all. They're impact kill. At near orbital speeds, the kinetic energy in the warhead and the interceptor is more than enough to vapourise both.

Would they not be more effective if they had nuclear tips?
Not really. Anti-aircraft of anti-balistic-missile nukes were intended for wiping out large formations with one shot. The downside is that your defensive nuke sets of an EMP over your own territory.