[Petrochemicals (OP)]

In the news this year we have heard threats and hysteria concerning nuclear bomb strikes, missiles too fast to intercept etc. If air defences where equipped with nuclear explosive intercept missiles to cause nuclear blasts in the atmosphere with the hope of intercepting incoming missiles what effect would this have on the environment ?

[Peter11]

The obvious are radiation fallout and EMP but they don't use nukes to take out nukes there is no such system.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

   What consequences?   Numerous but one of the most immediate is significant damage to satellites in the upper atmosphere,  of which there are thousands.   The commercial value of the satellites is high but you don't have to look upon it just in terms of dollars.   Those satellites maintain key infrastructure like communications, GPS and gathering intelligence.
    Overall, it is extremely unlikely that a country would want to create a significant detonation in the upper atmosphere,  taking the damage from an incoming nuclear weapon could be less destructive to the country's infrastructure (and their capability to make a military response).

    There is some details about the creation of artificial radiation belts in the atmosphere on this Wiki page:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_radiation_belts
    As it explains there,  charged particles tend to get trapped along magnetic field lines from planet earth.   Various tests have been done already and there is hard data available.   Many of those tests caused damage that rapidly resulted in the total failure of some key satellites (see the "Argus"  and  "Starfish"  projects).   There are now more satellites in space than ever before and they are an increasingly important part of the infrastructure.

    In 2010, the United States Defense Threat Reduction Agency issued a report that had been written in support of the United States Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack. The report, entitled "Collateral Damage to Satellites from an EMP Attack," discusses in great detail the historical events that caused artificial radiation belts and their effects on many satellites that were then in orbit. The same report also projects the effects of one or more present-day high-altitude nuclear explosions upon the formation of artificial radiation belts and the probable resulting effects on satellites that are currently in orbit 

[extract from the Wikipedia article]

   In summary:    The US and most other countries are unlikely to detonate a significant nuclear device in the upper atmosphere to defend against incoming missiles.   That could be helping the enemy cause more damage than they could cause on their own.   The damage would not be limited to just US satellites,  most satellites aren't completely geo-stationary, they move about and around the earth,  so there would be damage to satellites globally.

Best Wishes.

[evan_au]

Nobody wants to start a global nuclear war, because everyone will lose.

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

A nuclear explosion a few km above a city will raze that city to the ground in minutes with fire, shockwave and prompt radiation. But the delayed radiation will spread over a wide area, causing long-term problems for many people far from the target.

A nuclear explosion outside the atmosphere will cause almost no immediate effects on humans and other living things - but the ElectroMagnetic Pulse (EMP) could take down power grids for 1,000 km around, and fry electronic devices for hundreds of km around. Without streaming video and social media, society will collapse within a week.
- With only military electronics surviving, see quote from Einstein...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/World_War_III

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

A nuclear explosion can be of many sizes such as the tactical nuclear warhead "Davy Crockett" of the USA, this would be with the idea of creating a large blast radius to target hypersonic weapons, possibly with many warheads targeting a trajectory path.

[Eternal Student]

Hi again.

    There are no effective counter measures for a large scale enemy missile launch.   There are some projects, plenty of words and some numbers but that's all.   The numbers are quite meaningless and don't change anything in the world.   If you take out 1%,  7.5% or  even 20% of the enemy warheads then we are all just as dead.   However, the words can be comforting and it's very human to want to believe that they mean something.

Best Wishes.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Hi again.

    There are no effective counter measures for a large scale enemy missile launch.   There are some projects, plenty of words and some numbers but that's all.   The numbers are quite meaningless and don't change anything in the world.   If you take out 1%,  7.5% or  even 20% of the enemy warheads then we are all just as dead.   However, the words can be comforting and it's very human to want to believe that they mean something.

Best Wishes.

The obvious are radiation fallout and EMP but they don't use nukes to take out nukes there is no such system.

There was also no stealth bomber, arms to Iran or Internet surveillance, but it became "created". There was no SR72 blackbird and there is no ramjet hypersonic plane either.  Nor where there satellite destroying missiles.

If small nuclear arms where launched en masse and managed to down 50 percent of incoming missiles, this would mean only half of the sites destroyed, possibilities of a counterstrike etc.

The largest nuclear explosion was also one of the cleanest due to its atmospheric detonation and high fusion percentage. If a weapon such as Davy crocket can be used by ground infantry safely in radiological terms I am sure it could be "hypothetically" theorised to make a good intercept warhead.

[dorothytetcher]

Nobody wants to start a global nuclear war, because everyone will lose.

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Yes, there is no winner in it. Only catastrophic consequences for the world.

[yor_on]

I don't know what the effects would be?. Radioactive fallout is certain assuming some of the possible 'dust' and radiation directed towards Earth, the rest should go other ways with some of it, possibly, creating a new 'radioactive field' just hanging there? And it would depend on the amount of warheads too. EMP for certain. and probably local weather impacts depending on the explosions elevations. But we have a staggering amount of ICBM:s of the 'old school' available, by all sides, and it will be those that will be used. If it turns out nuclear.

[yor_on]

It might be more preferable to take them out in space, from my point of view, than to take them out in the atmosphere. But we don't have any systems that works, that I know of, that will do it. So instead I suspect we try to get as close as we can to the point of release, the silos, to take them out before they become space born, and up to speed.
=

And the idea of low yields is very old, from the fifties, and have nothing to do with M.A.D. It's a wet dream where one treat nuclear explosions the same way as a conventional, ignoring most everything about the differences.

[evan_au]

It might be more preferable to take them out in space

This maximises the EMP impact - although probably over someone else's territory, half-way between the launch point and the intended target.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

It might be more preferable to take them out in space, from my point of view, than to take them out in the atmosphere. But we don't have any systems that works, that I know of, that will do it. So instead I suspect we try to get as close as we can to the point of release, the silos, to take them out before they become space born, and up to speed.
=

And the idea of low yields is very old, from the fifties, and have nothing to do with M.A.D. It's a wet dream where one treat nuclear explosions the same way as a conventional, ignoring most everything about the differences.

I should not think intercepting a hypersonic missile in the earlier stages of its tragectory is feasible, if the tragectory is ballistic, modern missiles follow the earth surface.  The point of release has always been targetable, the V2 rocket during WW2 had railway launch units to stop this, so too did the Soviets during the cold War.


A low yield aiir burst is not controversial when faced with a multi warhead anti city missile

[yor_on]

Well, I keep thinking of it in environmental terms Evan. I don't care that much for those electrical devices, even though they too will destroy infra structures. There exist only a few studies on the environmental effects of a nuclear war, but those that does calls it a catastrophe.

[yor_on]

I'm not talking about hypersonics but about what would be used, IBCM:s. Even if I was it's incredibly much easier to hit the carrier, assuming there is one, than it would be the missile, once launched.  And all velocities builds from 'zero', ignoring relativity.
=

We could call it the difference between 'defending' and 'actively defending' ones country. The closer you get to the silos the better your chances. But doing so also raises the chances of a preemptive strike as the opponent knows why,  just as good as you.

have a read   https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-defense-against-nukes-and-ICBM

and do take the USA:s GMD system with a big pinch of salt.