It will always be easier to destroy than to create. Stopping multiple nukes at once isnt so much the issue. Stopping hundreds of missile launches that are coming simultaneously from multiple land, sea, and air launched sources is.
There are land based ICBMs which are launched and then have to cross around the world out in space to get to their targets which satellites could in theory have an easy time intercepting.. just a matter of money and time on that. Submarine launched missiles are harder to intercept as they can be both short and long range and short ranged do not get high enough for satellites to intercept so you need ground based defense systems which again isnt hard but needs lots of money invested. Finally you have air launched systems. There are stealth bombers with traditional gravity bombs (weapons that just fall and aren't launched) and air launched cruise missiles which can fly hundreds to thousands of miles to hit their targets.
Theres an old saying in the nuclear community... close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and thermo nuclear weapons. Many of these weapons dont need to actually hit any specific target. Exploding close enough can do enough collateral damage to not matter. For example.. a nuclear weapon exploding in the atmosphere can cause and EMP shockwave over an area relative to how high it was detonated. High enough in the atmosphere can have country wide effects as well as shutting down satellites.
Any explosion can cause radioactive waste contamination.. enough to be a major hassle but not beyond recovery. Several hundred or thousand explosions can cause a nuclear winter that could push humanity to an extinction level.
Nuclear weapons exist now for "MAD at MAD" reasons... Mutually Assured Deterrence at Mutually Assured Destruction. All the nuclear powers have essentially agreed (whether formally in writing or merely through diplomatic channels) that there is no "limited use" nuclear options. Any use will be met via full outright use. Any first strike use will be met with a last resort overwhelming use. This is why US, Russia, and China dont just have a few hundred weapons but several thousand (4k+).
Lastly.. many governments which had or pursued nukes and gave them up have had subsequent wars and or toppled governments. Libya, Iraq, Ukraine to name the big ones.
Bishop120 t1_iyn5sfk wrote
Reply to Is it possible that nuclear defense technologies will surpass the abilities of nuclear weapons in the future, rendering them near useless? by Wide-Escape-5618
It will always be easier to destroy than to create. Stopping multiple nukes at once isnt so much the issue. Stopping hundreds of missile launches that are coming simultaneously from multiple land, sea, and air launched sources is.
There are land based ICBMs which are launched and then have to cross around the world out in space to get to their targets which satellites could in theory have an easy time intercepting.. just a matter of money and time on that. Submarine launched missiles are harder to intercept as they can be both short and long range and short ranged do not get high enough for satellites to intercept so you need ground based defense systems which again isnt hard but needs lots of money invested. Finally you have air launched systems. There are stealth bombers with traditional gravity bombs (weapons that just fall and aren't launched) and air launched cruise missiles which can fly hundreds to thousands of miles to hit their targets.
Theres an old saying in the nuclear community... close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and thermo nuclear weapons. Many of these weapons dont need to actually hit any specific target. Exploding close enough can do enough collateral damage to not matter. For example.. a nuclear weapon exploding in the atmosphere can cause and EMP shockwave over an area relative to how high it was detonated. High enough in the atmosphere can have country wide effects as well as shutting down satellites.
Any explosion can cause radioactive waste contamination.. enough to be a major hassle but not beyond recovery. Several hundred or thousand explosions can cause a nuclear winter that could push humanity to an extinction level.
Nuclear weapons exist now for "MAD at MAD" reasons... Mutually Assured Deterrence at Mutually Assured Destruction. All the nuclear powers have essentially agreed (whether formally in writing or merely through diplomatic channels) that there is no "limited use" nuclear options. Any use will be met via full outright use. Any first strike use will be met with a last resort overwhelming use. This is why US, Russia, and China dont just have a few hundred weapons but several thousand (4k+).
Lastly.. many governments which had or pursued nukes and gave them up have had subsequent wars and or toppled governments. Libya, Iraq, Ukraine to name the big ones.