Why aren't you NUKE-PILLED yet? Nukes are fake and gay
Why aren't you NUKE-PILLED yet?
Nukes are fake and gay
Yes, the new advanced ICBM can hit anything before it can be detected.
Yes, the new advanced ICBM can hit anything before it can be detected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjNE_X5zmao
Agreed. But, disregard the new hypersonic missiles. I was talking more about conventional intercontinental nukes.
Agreed. But, disregard the new hypersonic missiles. I was talking more about conventional intercontinental nukes.
They could be stopped.
Question would be, how many could be stopped simultaneously and could they be stopped before they reached populated areas.
They could be stopped.
Question would be, how many could be stopped simultaneously and could they be stopped before they reached populated areas.
Question would be, how many could be stopped simultaneously and could they be stopped before they reached populated areas.
There are literally air defense systems spread across the globe. Speaking of the "number of locations", I would dare say there are air defense systems in more places then there are nukes. Do you think that makes a difference? Do you think one country alone could/would shoot that many nukes at once as to completely overwhelm all air defense systems?
>Question would be, how many could be stopped simultaneously and could they be stopped before they reached populated areas.
There are literally air defense systems spread across the globe. Speaking of the "number of locations", I would dare say there are air defense systems in more places then there are nukes. Do you think that makes a difference? Do you think one country alone could/would shoot that many nukes at once as to completely overwhelm all air defense systems?
The conventional ones are loaded up with flares and other active and passive deterrents to air defense. Many are also capable of dividing up into multi-target warheads as well. I think I read yesterday that they are about 60% likely to defeat anti defense measures. It depends on the concentration of defense in the area I suppose.
We're not going to have a "nuclear war". Putin is a pawn and the same people effectively control both sides. They are trying to scare you into submission, make more profits, and kill some people off in the process.
The conventional ones are loaded up with flares and other active and passive deterrents to air defense. Many are also capable of dividing up into multi-target warheads as well. I think I read yesterday that they are about 60% likely to defeat anti defense measures. It depends on the concentration of defense in the area I suppose.
We're not going to have a "nuclear war". Putin is a pawn and the same people effectively control both sides. They are trying to scare you into submission, make more profits, and kill some people off in the process.
Are our systems that advanced? Does the US actually possess anti missile systems for use in stopping ICBMs? If we do, are they tested? Do they work at all? We obviously haven't had to use them before there's a chance they don't even work.
Are our systems that advanced? Does the US actually possess anti missile systems for use in stopping ICBMs? If we do, are they tested? Do they work at all? We obviously haven't had to use them before there's a chance they don't even work.
Are our systems that advanced?
Yes
Does the US actually possess anti missile systems for use in stopping ICBMs?
I know the Arrow-3 can intercept ICBMs. Not sure about others.
If we do, are they tested?
Yes obviously.
Do they work at all? We obviously haven't had to use them before there's a chance they don't even work.
Good question. But I'm sure they test them on live missiles. They just don't have a payload.
>Are our systems that advanced?
Yes
>Does the US actually possess anti missile systems for use in stopping ICBMs?
I know the Arrow-3 can intercept ICBMs. Not sure about others.
>If we do, are they tested?
Yes obviously.
>Do they work at all? We obviously haven't had to use them before there's a chance they don't even work.
Good question. But I'm sure they test them on live missiles. They just don't have a payload.
You assume they're tested and that they work. Never underestimate the gross incompetence of the American government.
You assume they're tested and that they work. Never underestimate the gross incompetence of the American government.
I didn't assume anything. You asked if they tested it and if it worked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUQ4UlvSHzo
I don't disagree with our government being incompetent.
I didn't assume anything. You asked if they tested it and if it worked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUQ4UlvSHzo
I don't disagree with our government being incompetent.
Yes, it's extremely easy. The term is called haystacking:
Imagine you're shooting a nuke from NK to Los Angeles. Let's say there are 10 anti missile defense systems that can intercept the missile.
Boeing's hit rate was pretty shit... But let's pretend its 100%.
So now let's say the best Koreans have 5 ICBM nukes and fire them all at once. Still fucked
Now imagine they take those 5 nuke ICBMs, and launch them simultaneously with 15 regular ICBMs
The system has been overwhelmed.
Yes, it's extremely easy. The term is called haystacking:
Imagine you're shooting a nuke from NK to Los Angeles. Let's say there are 10 anti missile defense systems that can intercept the missile.
Boeing's hit rate was pretty shit... But let's pretend its 100%.
So now let's say the best Koreans have 5 ICBM nukes and fire them all at once. Still fucked
Now imagine they take those 5 nuke ICBMs, and launch them simultaneously with 15 regular ICBMs
The system has been overwhelmed.
Assuming only 10 air defence systems in one area and hypothesizing a gorillion nukes doesn't answer the question.
Stop being a downvote fag. That button is for jews.
Assuming only 10 air defence systems in one area and hypothesizing a gorillion nukes doesn't answer the question.
Stop being a downvote fag. That button is for jews.
You are neglecting boomers. They lay directly off the coast and no, you cannot intercept them once they launch.
You are neglecting boomers. They lay directly off the coast and no, you cannot intercept them once they launch.
Could you explain why it couldn't be stopped?
Could you explain why it couldn't be stopped?
They are generally preprogrammed, they do not need to ascend into space to develop a trajectory to target which limits the intercept time, and warheads can be attached to cruise missiles with extremely low trajectory ground hugging radar avoiding packages. Basically too fast, too low.
They are generally preprogrammed, they do not need to ascend into space to develop a trajectory to target which limits the intercept time, and warheads can be attached to cruise missiles with extremely low trajectory ground hugging radar avoiding packages. Basically too fast, too low.
There is no need for the nuke to hit the target.
Detonating a nuke in the atmosphere above the country will release an EMP wave that will destroy majority of electronic devices and throw the country back into stone age.
There is no need for the nuke to hit the target.
Detonating a nuke in the atmosphere above the country will release an EMP wave that will destroy majority of electronic devices and throw the country back into stone age.
Except for carburated, conventional ignition vehicles. Read " One minute after". The cranky old woman drives her Edsel around town. After an EMP event, it's th he only running car around.
Except for carburated, conventional ignition vehicles. Read " One minute after". The cranky old woman drives her Edsel around town. After an EMP event, it's th he only running car around.
That's has nothing to do with my question. I know how aerial blast nukes work. But could they even make it far enough to detonate over the target?
That's has nothing to do with my question. I know how aerial blast nukes work. But could they even make it far enough to detonate over the target?
Username checks out.
I'll explain it to you like you are 5 years old:
US doesn't have an protection form space based and high altitude missile attacks, so there would be no need for anyone to try to hit you directly with an nuclear strike when they can just take out your technology and watch niggers burn the rest to the ground.
Username checks out.
I'll explain it to you like you are 5 years old:
US doesn't have an protection form space based and high altitude missile attacks, so there would be no need for anyone to try to hit you directly with an nuclear strike when they can just take out your technology and watch niggers burn the rest to the ground.
Why are you continually responding while not answering the question? I'm not asking for scenarios. The question is in plain English. And I've even edited it to make it more clear what I am asking. Space weapons are NOT conventional weapons. Get with it or find another question to not answer elsewhere.
Why are you continually responding while not answering the question? I'm not asking for scenarios. The question is in plain English. And I've even edited it to make it more clear what I am asking. Space weapons are NOT conventional weapons. Get with it or find another question to not answer elsewhere.
How bout if they just detonate in the ocean, could they be used to cause a massive tidal wave?
How bout if they just detonate in the ocean, could they be used to cause a massive tidal wave?
Oh... Interesting concept. I wonder if there is any info floating around about something like this. We do have the "earthquake machine". Technically that could be used to create a tidal wave. But nukes... Never thought of that...
Oh... Interesting concept. I wonder if there is any info floating around about something like this. We do have the "earthquake machine". Technically that could be used to create a tidal wave. But nukes... Never thought of that...
Just keep in mind who's operating our "anti" systems. They don't function automatically.
And, in 2022, that would most likely be a angry, homosexual, dude in a dress that wants to be called "Linda" and has a chip on it's shoulder, supports Antiqua and Black Lives (don't) Matter and hates you, America, and anything else that comes to it's mind it doesn't agree with.
Just keep in mind who's operating our "anti" systems. They don't function automatically.
And, in 2022, that would most likely be a angry, homosexual, dude in a dress that wants to be called "Linda" and has a chip on it's shoulder, supports Antiqua and Black Lives (don't) Matter and hates you, America, and anything else that comes to it's mind it doesn't agree with.
Russia has a cool one called Satan 2. Look it up, and you tell me. They don't have to hit anything but water. The thing has a blast the size of texas. Detonate that bitch in the atlantic and a 100+ foot tidal wave will kill everything on the east coast.
Russia has a cool one called Satan 2. Look it up, and you tell me. They don't have to hit anything but water. The thing has a blast the size of texas. Detonate that bitch in the atlantic and a 100+ foot tidal wave will kill everything on the east coast.
Missile defense systems can and will shoot down lot's of things but they will never catch 100% of everything. We have seen this in action many times with systems like Iron Dome. If you fire 1 or 2 missiles at an area protected by Iron Dome they will be for sure shot down. If you fire 10 missile at the same time at the same location, most will be shot down but 1 or 2 will likely get through.
My general take is that missile defense systems are a decent defense against tactical or limited usage of ballistic missiles. However in any form of 'total war' scenario with NBC warheads where only one really needs to make it through, missile defense systems will not do much to help
Missile defense systems can and will shoot down lot's of things but they will never catch 100% of everything. We have seen this in action many times with systems like Iron Dome. If you fire 1 or 2 missiles at an area protected by Iron Dome they will be for sure shot down. If you fire 10 missile at the same time at the same location, most will be shot down but 1 or 2 will likely get through.
My general take is that missile defense systems are a decent defense against tactical or limited usage of ballistic missiles. However in any form of 'total war' scenario with NBC warheads where only one really needs to make it through, missile defense systems will not do much to help
Yes, very much so.
The "anti" systems have thus far proved to be overrated.
Yes, very much so.
The "anti" systems have thus far proved to be overrated.
(post is archived)