Question : Counter attack or defense against "rods"

Okay, so I was reading another thread about a very deadly weapon . This is natural for me to think of a counter , I believe in balance and I am aware of how the universe works, a balance will manifest in some form or fashion. So I began to ponder.
How does one counter or defend themselves against this type of weaponry.

I created this thread to talk about the possibilities. I wanted to discuss, read, and think about the possibilities.

It would've been great to do this in the actual thread but, I didn't want to take it off-course.

Anywho let me know what you guys think.
my thoughts, a hypothetical em field.... That is just a dry shot in the dark. I will edit or reply with my thoughts

Your links not working for me mate. As to your rods from the gods question, there is as of yet no conventional means of protection or defence against a weapon/object traveling at such velocity. We would need a force field or ray capable of influencing the trajectory of said rod. And that's if we even manage to detect there approach. I suppose it may be possible to shoot them down using Rail guns doubt it through!

reply to post by andy06shake


yes!!! Thats what im looking for. I believe there are few, if any types of weaponry that exist, that may be capable of destroying them. I want to hear the plausible non-existant ideas or things out of the box like possibility of the rail gun, or a ray of some sort.
TY for your time.

reply to post by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS


No problem, you need to fix your video it's still non functional, clicking the Youtube link don't work also.

Scalar wave interferometers(next generation H.A.A.R.P devices) would do the job!

www.angelfire.com...

reply to post by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS

We have very thorough space surveillance. If a rod launching platform is identified, it can be taken out by ASAT weapons. It could be camouflaged as something else, but once it starts releasing weapons it would have a very limited lifespan. (And so would whoever launched the satellite.) I assume the rod itself, if acquired in time, could be destroyed by an ABM weapon. There are a lot of assumptions behind that statement, but it seems doable in principle.

This is a science fiction staple, but is it really practicable? Why waste all that energy hauling your impactor up into orbit, when you can just put a bomb on a missile or a plane and fly to your target?

16000 rnds per sec.computer guided targeting.

I hear a tinfoil hat works pretty good, same with ozone, or plexiglass pyramids.

The " Rod from God" has yet to be proven to exist outside of the conspiracy and sci-fi circles.... So, any of the before mentioned hoopla should do the trick...

If we want to go strictly theoretical bedrock... or a mountain... The rods are a kinetic energy weapon, meaning it's a big hunk of metal falling from space, If you get beneath something thick enough it won't do a damn thing but make a hole in that thick material between you and it.

How ever, it's not been proven to exist... so I'd go with some velostat should do the trick.

reply to post by Hijinx


I miss the days of ATS, when you could have a discussion without sarcasm, and insolent comments. The thread wasn't about whether it exist or not. Some people can't think beyond what they can see.
We can debate that somewhere else. If something of this nature exist how would one counter it.

reply to post by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS


You don't, you don't counter it.

In theory this weapon is simple a heavy ass piece of tungsten dropped on you from miles above your head. The kinetic energy is #ing enormous. It doesn't have an electronic signature, it doesn't have a heat signature, it doesn't have a launch signature it just falls on your head completely unannounced. It would be the ultimate weapon if they could get past all the enormous hurdles making it a viable, accurate, cost efficient weapon.

That much kinetic energy is incredibly hard to defeat, if it doesn't bust right through it will surely crush you and anything protecting you to a pancake. Tungsten is on par with uranium and gold as far as weight goes, but unlike uranium and gold it is quite strong and rigid making it the ideal material for kinetic energy weapons.

It could be a cube shape and still obliterate the best armored tanks, decimate buildings or ships. If shaped in a tapered point it would penetrate most heavily fortified ground bunkers as well with an enormous amount of spall and hell pouring into the bunker as it drives right through.

The reason this weapon is fantasized by conspiracy theories, the military and fiction is it really would be the perfect weapon. How ever it's just so freaking impossible to get right, to truly be the perfect weapon it needs guidance and that's really not the most viable option on a weapon designed to free fall, delivering it's hit strictly in kinetic energy. It would defeat the silent kill option as well. Again, getting several tons of a semi rare element in to orbit is another problem. Several tons of tungsten is expensive, so would the satellite that would drop it, so would the rocket that would have to take it into orbit, were talking millions, if not billions of dollars. When you can buy a can build and deploy a conventional bomb for thousands of dollars.


If we were to try and defeat this weapon I would say starve, or prevent the potential attacker from acquiring sufficient tungsten to deploy a system such as this, or prevent them from getting a satellite into orbit.

If you get exact potential dimensions of a supposed rod, we could figure out the kinetic energy and maybe figure out how big of a mountain you would need to hide in. ha ha

reply to post by Hijinx


Rods aren't defendable. But they are impractical strategically and extremely expensive. You can't get good enough accuracy to be worth the cost. You will destroy anything you hit. You won't destroy it any better than a bomberload of conventional guided weapons. Your accuracy is less, because there is no terminal guidance. Your expensive is enormously higher.

That's why they've never been produced or deployed or even prototyped. Work through it in the budget-constrained strategic thinking that technical militaries do---what are our requirements and how much can we spend on them---and you find they don't make sense. What do they gain?

reply to post by mbkennel


I'm aware of this friend... Not sure why you replied to me, basically saying the same thing I did.

How ever thank you, for further supporting the arguments I brought about here Good on you for having a sensible mind.