Comments by "William Cox" (@WildBillCox13) on "Hoe kan je een kernraket stoppen?" video.

  1. Exactly. An antimissile doesn't vaporize its target. It damages maneuvering and control and command components of a cruise missile, but has little if any effect on a descending ballistic missile.
    1
  2. I hope you won't mind me using your interesting video as the launch tube for a discussion on what "shooting down a ballistic missile" means. 1) Most V2 (and the later Scud and El Kalil derivatives) weapons did not detonate when they struck the ground. Almost no one seems to recognize that. Even so, they did respectable damage . . . not by chemical explosive effect, but by kinetic energy transmission (AKA impact) alone! ICBMs travel 60 times as fast, meaning that their admittedly lighter warheads still do much more kinetic energy at impact . . . even it they do not detonate. Get this: most V2 and Scud missiles fired broke up in the descent phase of their trajectory . . . before any counter could be launched . . . and still did considerable damage, just from the inert chunks hitting the ground. Wonder why this is not more widely reported? So do I. 2) Patriot could no more shoot down a missile (render it harmless) than I can beat Ken Shamrock in a fist fight. Patriot was meant to damage maneuvering and guidance and command elements-not detonate a ballistic trajectory warhead. It (Patriot) has not nearly enough power to vaporise or disperse already discrete chunks of an incoming missile whose aggregate mass is 20 tons or more. Watch the footage again. The patriot flies into a cloud of descending debris and explodes . . . and those chunks STILL STRIKE THE GROUND! Can't stop 'em. Patriot was a placebo, not a cure for Scuds. 3) Star Wars could not vaporise warheads or missiles either. Today's LASER weapons can't do it, either. If the warhead enters the descent phase, it's still going to do enormous damage . . . as well as scatter nuclear warhead components over a wide area . . . contaminating that area with cancer causing (and lethal radiation dosage) effect, likely killing more people over time than the warhead would've killed if it struck target and detonated. Missiles are extremely resistant to LASERs . . . heat resistant, highly reflective . . . it's like using a dart gun to damage a punching bag. 4) The only reason I can think of that any government would foist this schoolboy crap on its public-that Antimissiles and LASERS can "shoot down" incoming Nuclear warheads- is as part of a colossal scam intended to squeeze more blood from its peoples' stones. Ouch. Get off my stones! 5) And, if Antimissile projects are scams . . .it's likely that the Nuclear Threat is a scam, too. You're smart-right? Think about how much radiation shielding a designer can fit to a warhead containing a kilo of enriched Uranium or other highly fissile material. Not much. Missiles are the most tightly calculated weight fraction exercises ever. Ask any KSP player. You can fit a warhead with one or the other-nuclear device OR neutron/Alpha Particle shielding-not both. No one can shield you or your delicate electronics from the Gamma or X-Rays. So, this begs the question: what's the shelf life on a missile at the ready with a nuclear warhead? How long till all the delicate electronic (yes-and Optronic) command, control, and maneuvering, circuitry is rendered useless? How long till the missile frames are radioactive themselves and thus lethal for their crews to handle or stay in contact with? Disclaimer: These are merely my opinions on the topic. I'd like to hear from the experts on it.* *Trolls are also allowed on this ride (even government agency shills) . . . but I won't feed you.
    1