Replies

The problem posed is short range missiles fired off shore to destroy coastal cities. The physics of the problem is that the missiles fired even at sub Mach speeds fly only say 200 miles. If you put an anti defense missile system,(on shore of course, off shore is an unnecessary expense), the spacing of the defensive batteries becomes a problem. If you put them every say 100 miles you have to intercept at above mach speeds just to catch up with the missile, plus the distance to the missile from the launch point, plus the reaction time to determine the validity of the alert.

For example, if fired from off shore of the entrance to the San Francisco bay, into the SF harbor at the speed of an airplane not a missile, the distance to travel is 360 miles an hour, going three miles, a minute, so your interceptor at say Mare Island in Vallejo would have to travel 50 miles 15 times the speed of a plane. Impossible.

The only way to protect would be to place launchers every 50 miles or so and write off the cities that were within three miles of the ocean, virtualy all of them. (Three miles chosen as international waters.)

It is impossible to make a screen dense enough to stop all off shore missiles fired from the three mile limit, and then that is assuming that our enemies would even honor the three mile limit. What about launching from withing the harbor of the city itself?

So, the premise of missile defense is not a complete answer. Besides most nations will use a terrorist proxy and not use a missile delivery system in the first place.

It is impossible to make a screen dense enough to stop all off shore missiles fired from the three mile limit, and then that is assuming that our enemies would even honor the three mile limit. What about launching from within the harbor of the city itself?

For plausible deniability they likely would launch from further out, and sink the ship to evade forensic review. Any rate, if they didn't, the city itself would be targetted in this case, especially with the air-breather's range being relatively limited. Likely the best defense against a real close-in attack scenario would be hard-point defense of THEL batteries positioning strategically along the seaward coasts and inland harbors.

So, the premise of missile defense is not a complete answer.

Never said it was. But it will be a major improvement and security enhancement. Allowing for us to address this problem with the assurance that the main threat is actually under control:

Besides most nations will use a terrorist proxy and not use a missile delivery system in the first place.

Closed and enforced borders solves this.