would it be feasible to put CWIS on top of nuclear reactors to defend them?

They'd be kind of a bitch to reload if you just craned them up there. A lot simpler to put them around the perimeter on the ground.

>>63863689 (OP)
It would. I would also be completely ineffective.

>>63863689 (OP)
Why put it on top of the reactor?

>>63863689 (OP)
no CWIS is extremely short ranged compared to anti-missile missals
the range is so short that most of the missile it destroys would continue to crash on target due to momentum

>>63866323
That's why they use AP, to detonate the warhead

>>63866391
That still leads to the target being showered with high speed shrapnel and debris. Which is better than taking a direct hit from a missile or bomb, but it still sucks. CWIS just doesn't have the range to hit fast moving targets from a safe distance, hence why anti-missile missiles are the primary means of defense against incoming missiles, and CWIS is treated as a last ditch effort against such threats when it is used at all.

CWIS can't shoot down a ballistic missile.

>>63863838
are you unfamiliar with the concept of a ladder?

>>63864909
You know how it's easier to catch a fastball if it's coming right at you, as opposed to passing a few yards above or to the side of you? Same deal with CWIS and other types of missile interceptors. They perform best when they are the target.

i wonder how much money the heavy water in the nook is worth