doesn't the ash cloud present a national security nightmare?

[grasswire]

If military planes can't fly, how can a country defend itself?

I assume, though, that the cloud does not interfere with satellite surveillance?

We haven't heard a word about military implications.

[dipsydoodle]

1. Yup

maybe time to uprate the threat level to "highly paranoid"

[Pharlo]

2. If planes can't fly,

a country doesn't need to defend itself against an air assault.

As poster #1 stated, in this instance satellite surveillance of ground troop movements would be a more immediate concern.

I am sort of curious though as to what, if any, impact the ash cloud would have on a ICBM. I imagine the ash could cause problems with the electronics if it could permeate into the guts of the electronics, but what about the flight capabilities itself? And, would the ash increase potential problems with the flight trajectory iteself?

Interesting question you raised. Unfortunately, I don't have the technical knowledge to answer any of my own questions.

But, yes, I can see several instances where the ash could be a national security threat. Any country with insufficient ground troops close to a border with a country that could be deemed 'hostile' (think of the 'cessation of hostilites' between India/Pakistan or Russia/Georgia). However, I would think any country that shares a border with a country deemed 'hostile' would have sufficient and well equipped ground forces close to the border. It's countries where heavy ground troops are not part of their defense strategy, but rather an 'air defense' strategy comprises their primary defense where this may be more of an issue.

On the other hand, I don't think Switerland is going to take this environmental opportunity to invade Italy, Germany, France, Austria, or the Principality of Lichtenstein. And, as much as France and the UK may enjoy verbal spats proclaiming each country's superiority over the other, I highly doubt either country is going to invade the other via naval assault or The Chunnel.

Of course, not being an expert on military matters, I could be completely wrong on both counts.

[hayu_lol]

3. Military planes would fly despite conditions...

the loss rate would only be unacceptable for civilian airliners.

Any enemy flying in the same conditions would suffer the same loss rate as our own.

[Orrex]

5. And then they'd detonate the Genesis device, and where would that leave us?

[Pharlo]

6. I could see military planes being sent out if

satellite surveillance showed incoming military aircraft. I'm not being snarky here, I'm genuinely curious - have military flights not been grounded during this episode, or are 'routine military flights' continuing in spite of the ash in the air? And, as the poster below indicates, military planes can fly lower than commercial planes - would that also be a determining factor? Because from what I have read, on multiple posts here, when Mt St Helen's erupted, cars had to have air filters changed every 10 miles or so. Based upon that, would 'flying lower' really decrease the risk involved in flying through the ash?

And, have you any clue as to what the loss rate would be? Once again, based upon what I've read, I was under the impression that the 'loss rate' would be 100%. Is this not so?

[hobbit709]

7. Wouldn't really effect an ICBM

There are no air intakes on one to be clogged. Heatshield is designed for reentry temperatures. Might slightly alter accuracy, but not enough to really matter. With a 5 megaton warhead plus or minus even a 1000 feet isn't going to make much difference if you're anywhere near impact point.

[virgogal]

4. Maybe most military planes fly at a lower altitude.