Dear Dan3:
If you were an EE, you would know about such things as triple redundancy. You have three antenna systems, a switch set to connect any antenna system to any system set, a shielded box with three sets of shafts to position each antenna system with a triple group of actuators each, three electronic system sets independently shielded. Set 1 is operating and sending light to solar cells in each box to prevent them from opening. When an EMP or other event causes Set 1 to fail, the light is no longer being sent, This causes an actuator in Set 2 to activate opening the shield around that set and plugging Set 2 to the active antenna system. If antenna system is also fried, switch connects it to antenna system 2. Now you have a working system and antenna to continue the task. If something else happens and Set 2 stops, Set 3 is activated and then connected. You have to have at least three failures to stop the task from being performed. Thus all you need are four things, a external system not requiring shielding against EMP, a shielded system that can withstand EMP, a system to activate a shielded system and bring it online, and a method to determine that the current system has developed a fault (such as a breakdown or an EMP burst has occurred). Mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, and chemical systems are typically immune to EMP bursts. Only electric, magnetic, and electronic systems are susceptable to EMP bursts (although a near detonation of a nuke can physically destroy any element of the system).
Once a system is found to destroy or render ineffective ICBMs (or SLBMs), making that system effective even with EMP bursts is far more easier. Just like getting a computer to work in ideal conditions was not easy, making it work in more challenging conditions was straight forward and simple (making it do it and be cheap was much harder).
Limited ICBM (SLBM) defense is technically feasible. Getting a working system is much harder but, still possible. Many of the tasks required by such a system have many probable spinoffs (even SDI had quite a few spinoffs that make money even now (the spinoffs from NASA projects are now numbered in the hundreds of billions)).
BTW, the method for generating an EMP burst, a nuclear detonation at 100km altitude, could be stopped by a limited boost phase intercept. And since the cost to this country would be in the trillions, a 100 billion dollar boost phase intercept system for a few missiles would be cheap insurance. Limited SDI would be a stepping stone to that system (a large part). Also, it would be a far easier sell to the world for a system that would stop EMP bursts due to the havoc it would cause to non combatants. Russia and China have a lot to lose in an EMP burst (more so as time goes on) and thus would probably accept such a defense system, if it covered the whole world and would stop anyone from doing it, including us. Matter of fact, if the Limited SDI system can be shown to protect the whole world against a limited strike and is operated by a known impartial global agency (this is the hard part for us although we probably would allow monitoring by the UN Security Council), both the Russians and the Chinese would accept it (the thing for the big military for both countries has always been national defense (offensive capabilities are just a natural byproduct)).
Pete |
