I'd add a caveat to this.

We can do this because of war.

We know where it will land accurately because that maths and physics has been sharpened with butt loads of data. Even the reentry blackout has links to war in Plasma Stealth[0].

That data was mostly obtained because we want to know where our ICBM warheads will land. And where the enemies ICBM warheads will land so we can work on the problem of shooting them down.

The Russian Kinzhal missile can hit targets at mach-10, with a plasma aura making it's terminal phase hard to track on Radar. But after some data was collected Patriot missile systems were able to intercept about 1 in 3 air launched Kinzhal missiles. Then minor terminal adjustments were introduced and interception fell to about 1 in 20. Now there's a constant cat and mouse game going on in Ukraine.

On the one hand that's a good thing, our combative efforts being sublimated into curiosity of the world.

On the other hand, we still put far more effort into furthering our ability to destroy the world.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_stealth

▲

m4rtink 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

IIRC reentry plasma is actually highly radar reflective - so it is not hard to track, just hard to hit due to the speed, as there is limited time to do it.

	▲	rustyhancock 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If that were the case then the mach-10 Kinzhal would be harder to hit than the mach-5 Kh-32. But the interception rate for the Kh-32 is basically nonexistence (<1%). The Kh-22/32 is why mach-5 + maneuverability is the current goal of offensive missile systems. The plasma has complex interaction with radar, it's not stealth as in entirely invisible just chaotic scattering and reflections. The result is a jamming effect preventing a definite intercept solution. On the other hand the plasma shows up on satilite based IR tracking systems.

▲

elevatortrim 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

To say “because of war”, you would also have to prove we could not do it without war.

	▲	jkman 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's an absurd statement. By your logic, you can't just say that we have the smallpox vaccine "because of Edward Jenner". Because you would also "have to prove we could not do it without Edward Jenner". What does that even mean??