Star Wars initial's goal was to be able to defend against thousands of incoming warheads. That hasn't happened. Now the plan is to defend against maybe a few at a time (I'd be hopeful that it could scale up though). Currently that isn't yet working and setup. So, what defenses exist against ICBMs?

1) Can a carrier fleet take out an incoming nuclear missile that is aimed for it? Can it take out multiple ones? Does it take these out with missiles/canons/lasers?

2) Apparently these laser-firing 747s are going to be going in the air soon. What can they really do?

3) Does the country have anything in the way of meaningful anti-icbm defenses?

*BONUS QUESTION* If Putin's recent announcement of an upgraded nuke is anything close to reality, how would it work in ways to avoid being countered that current ICBMs can't? I think that already they have multiple warheads with chaff and decoys, so what would his nuke do? At mach 25 (?) surely it can't maneuver laterally very fast.

I know that Star Wars was a lofty dream, and one that won't be realized any time soon, but how close is the current approach to reality in terms of having a decent chance at stopping at least one or two ICBMs (assuming that this ability doesn't exist at all)?

I know somebody reading this knows about this matter. :)

We have the ability to knock ICBM's out of the sky. That isn't the problem, the problem is if Russia, or whoever, actually launches them, it is the amount of missile being fired that will be the problem. Stopping 2 ICBMs wouldn't pose a problem. (Don't bring up the SCUD missiles being fired at Isreal as an example. The weapons we would use here are not shared with other countries). It will be impossible to destroy all of the incoming ICBMs before the hit. This is where the deterent of 'I have enough missiles to launch a counter attack and also destroy you that comes in.'

Fortunately most countries don't either have or have enough ICBMs to destroy are country. With the small amounts these countries do have, it is very possible to intercept them before they strike.

Russia and us have more than enough to destroy the world 7 times over. Both have the capability to respond to an attack. These responses, along with the first attack, would probably doom mankind.

At Mach 25 and with chaff, etc., it would be an awesome weapon. The missile probably also has forward looking ground terrian radar and guidance(which means it will fly only about 100 feet above the ground). It may also be made of the same material our B-17s are made of.

For about 8 years of my military career, I was in a surface to air missile system. I job was to track enemy airplanes and shoot them and missile down. It is a lot harder than people think, especially with something flying only about 100 feet above the ground. The faster the object flies, the easier it is to target, you just don't have much time.

With all the monetary problems in Russia, I wonder if Putin is telling the truth about a new missile. It is one thing to say you have it, to show something that could be it, and another ro actually demonstrate it.

What is currently used to take out incoming ICBMs, and how will the new minimalistic ballistic shield build upon it...?

Anyone know what material is used to stop it burning up at mach 25. I was under the impression by the recent scramjet tests that it was becoming a problem at mach 10 !

I think (not sure though), that the thing about the scramjet is that it's still within atmosphere. It's using oxygen to feed itself, and so mach 10 is pretty good. But, with mach 25 the air resistance would create insane heat, and that's why an ICBM goes very high and actually leaves the atmosphere for much of its flight. That's why it doesn't burn up, and how it can achieve such sick speeds. At mach 25 something can get from California to Maine (3200 miles) in a little over 10 minutes. not bad!

I know that typically an ICBM is more vulnerable when it's in its boost phase (burning initially after launch). After that, when it's in space, it's rather tricky to think about hitting. Also, you don't need to go as fast as it, but merely estimate where it will be. A blast wave from explosions can be less than mach 25, so if you blew up a foot behind it you may not even hit it, so that's why you need something to detonate in front of it.

Unfortunatley an ICBM is not the most likely vector of attack. The countries that have them will not likely use them. People often confuse having nuclear capabilities with having the capability to send one half way around the world. Its not that easy to shoot a missle that far. For instance, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, they are mostly pointed at one another, but thier launch systems can only send them a few thousand miles, not even past australia. This is the case with othe Nuclear countries as well.

A more probable vector?

The millions of uninspected, unverified, sometimes pirated, shipping containers that come into the U.S. every month. Think about it, a would be attacker would only need one sympathetic trucker in god knows what country to carry a bomb to a port. Then into the ship it goes and a week later its in L.A. and no one is the wiser. Anyone not wear 10 million sunscreen will have a real bad day.

Unfortunatley an ICBM is not the most likely vector of attack. The countries that have them will not likely use them. People often confuse having nuclear capabilities with having the capability to send one half way around the world. Its not that easy to shoot a missle that far. For instance, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, they are mostly pointed at one another, but thier launch systems can only send them a few thousand miles, not even past australia. This is the case with othe Nuclear countries as well.

A more probable vector?

The millions of uninspected, unverified, sometimes pirated, shipping containers that come into the U.S. every month. Think about it, a would be attacker would only need one sympathetic trucker in god knows what country to carry a bomb to a port. Then into the ship it goes and a week later its in L.A. and no one is the wiser. Anyone not wear 10 million sunscreen will have a real bad day.Right, but that wouldn't only be used by terrorists, as a country intent upon real destruction would not resort to such slow and painstaking ways. That approach is very difficult to fight off, and I've no doubt that one day it will become reality. I take comfort knowing that I live in a small city (one million is fairly small), and the likely target of that would be a concentrated area. In fact, this is one of the reasons why I'd never live long term in a highrise in New York. You just KNOW that if/when terrorists get their paws on something like that the first place they'll go will be NY or a city with a similar concentration of residents. It's really just a matter of time, I think.

One nuke, though, while catastrophic, would limit itself to one small area, whereas a number of nukes launched with missiles would be the true "world-enders".

I agree with you that the method you mentioned is far and away more likely to see itself come to fruition than a full scale nuclear war. Thankfully those in charge of the latter consist of at least several level-headed individuals at the top of real governments.

I do some work with missile defense, and although much is classified, I can say that there have been press releases regarding what we do, and the majority of the test have been successful, with only one miss. The difficulty is akin to shooting one bullet out of the air with another bullet

LOL i liked the flash vid!

I just two days ago read a link that talked about all the publically known facets of the US missile defense. It was sweet, but damned if I can find it now. My estimation - what i recall coming away with - was that right now the US has no meaningful defense, but in about a decade (according to what the site was saying), there would be several different defenses including possible ship-shields (aegis destroyers), ground-based defenses, satellites, and laser-planes.