![Tucson05_TitanICBM[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/pQ0IG0L.jpg "Tucson05_TitanICBM[1].jpg")
Theoretically, what would be an effective way to counter an ICBM barrage?
>>28414478
A metric fuckton of ABMs, an Airborne Laser if you had the scratch to male one, anf a super-duper radar system to coordinate everything with. Oh, and early warning. Seconds will count.
And this is for a small barrage.
>>28414478
Massive retaliation through submarine based missiles, airborne bombers, and hardened missile silos.
>>28414478
Air and space based lasers. Theoretically of course.
>>28414478
A preemptive ICBM barrage
>>28414478
>Get Electric Rickenbacker bass, preferably blue
>Commandeer the last flying SR-71
>Sit on the nosecone until you get in visual range of target
>Jump off, making sure to line your fall up with the warhead's reentry path
>Use bass as a bat, warhead as baseball
>Home run that sonofabitch right into the moon
>Parachute to safety
>>28414478
Good espionage alerting you so you can launch SLBM's from close range before they commit to ICBM exchange
>>28414622
>ABMs
Cool. Didn't know these existed.
>Airborne Laser if you had the scratch to male one
What do you mean "scratch the male one"?
>>28414672
Thank God for MAD.
>>28414679
How much has this been developed? Is this what the 1980s Star Wars program was?
Do you guys think the US has a secret counter yet?
>>28414478
Lasers & ABMs
Were talking "Long Live Belka!" lasers, in the multitude of Megawatts per emitters.
>>28414704
Powerful enough lasers aren't practical yet.
>>28414736
What's a long life belka laser?
Google didn't turn up anything
>>28414694
But will you swing the bat?
>>28414704
"Had the scratch (funding) to MAKE one."
My bad.
>>28414694
Don't forget to add a chainsaw engine to your bass.
>>28414760
>>28414742
They are if you're happy to disregard the CTBT and develop nuclear pumped X ray lasers. The biggest obstacle is Edward Teller being dead.
![1436892855604[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/XEaqIpQ.png "1436892855604[1].png")
>>28414793
>>28414817
The biggest obstacle is energy density.
>>28414827
Of the beam or the power source? If it's the former, that's not a problem in space, if it's the latter, it's a nuke, they have a pretty high energy density.
>>28414751
Belka = a made up nation in the Ace Combat Strangereal universe. They like to do crazy shit to maintain sovereignty & shenanigans.
One of their things was a tall ass tower with an insanely powerful laser on top.
Do that, but build more than one.
Each tower should be able to zap a few warheads.
>>28414844
The power source.
>>28414901
It's a goddamn nuke. Even if you only convert a percent of the energy output to X rays you're still delivering enough to vape the missile.
>>28414920
You're desperately confused. What you're saying has literally nothing to do with this subject. There is no sufficiently compact power source to power a megawatt+ class laser on an aircraft or satellite.
>>28414704
NUTS>MAD
>>28414947
Look up Project Excalibur. As with an explosively pumped EMP, once you stop worrying about your generator surviving being fired a lot of possibilities open up. We'd have this system by now if Reagan had been more forceful with Gorbachev.
>>28414793
>till
Fucking die.
>>28414983
>till
Best defense against a nuclear barrage: be someplace else.
>>28417012
Wrong.
Strike first.
>>28417241
arent silos protected (atleast somewhat) from nuclear blasts?
>>28417271
No.
Especially not Russias.
First strike capability is now becoming the offical doctrine of US and China is developing it.
4th generation nuclear weapons will change things even more.
>>28417381
Russia still has SLBMs which are, for all intents and purposes, unkillable.
>>28417521
If your subs are at sea and if they cannot be detected/tracked.
Both of those things are not a given for Russia.
>>28417521
Correct, and so do we.
There will be various solutions to SLBMs, one would be track and kill. Russia has pretty shitty subs.
Another would be coastal response to SLBMs, as in predicting where they will launch from and give a counter measure.
>>28417574
>Both of those things are not a given for Russia.
I was under the impression that they maintain a continuous at sea nuclear deterrent, like the USA and UK or are you talking about tracking?
>>28417591
>Another would be coastal response to SLBMs, as in predicting where they will launch from and give a counter measure.
Given the range, that's a pretty large box and you also have to deal with depressed trajectory if they feel like moving closer in.
>>28417741
To be honest I don't know if we have any crazy nuclear developments, I doubt we do, but the things we designed in the 50s and 60s were fucking insane (Project Pluto and what not).
That is a very large range, but during an escalation crisis we can develop the technology needed.
>>28417775
>To be honest I don't know if we have any crazy nuclear developments, I doubt we do
Considering the problems Enduring Stockpile encountered (most notably with FOGBANK) it doesn't look like anything new at all has been developed since CTBT. All of the efforts seem to be on keeping warheads that were envisioned to be replaced within years going for decades.
>during an escalation crisis we can develop the technology needed
I'm afraid I must disagree here, it would take a far more bull headed leader than Putin to kickstart another arms race. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see what we could develop but I just don't see enough of a time gap between a new and credible threat emerging and that threat becoming fully manifest for the great nuclear laboratories of old to be restarted.
I also realize that even the strongest impetus wouldn't result in atmospheric testing resuming but I would gladly risk a dusting of fallout to watch a nuclear test if one occurred in the atmosphere, it would make a Shuttle launch look like a firecracker.
>>28417741
Russia does do that but they have one or two boomers (nuke subs) patrolling at any given moment whereas the US has at least half a dozen and I'm not sure about the UK. Also, US subs are much stealthier than Russian (due to propeller shape, soundproofing, and other shit that other people could explain better than I could). This means that every time a Russian sub leaves port they have a US sub on their tail, and sometimes they're not even aware of it. I'm sure this will draw plenty of ire from the vatniks but the bottom line is that boomers are something that the US simply does better than anyone else
>inb4 chicoms boasting about their super quiet electric subs. Good luck taking those outside coastal waters
Figure out what computer components they use to steer them. Find out if they maintain contact with the ICBM throughout it's flight. Devote significant resources to understanding the control software/hardware.
Jam any signals when they're fired. Attempt to commandeer control and disarm them bomb before it detonates. If at all possible, redirect the missile by keeping it in orbit longer, or fuck up it's re-entry and hope it burns up in the atmosphere if it's achieved enough speed.
If the missile is coming down, and it's armed, there's very little you can do except disarm, destroy the warhead and it's trigger mechanisms.
>>28414478
Google Nike missile program.
It was real.
It might have worked.
>>28417819
Our biggest conflict threat is with China, not Russia.
Also, please no, not another arms race.
It will destroy MSR research.
>>28414704
The Soviet Union developed "Polyus," an orbital weapons platform armed with a laser to destroy SDI satellites. It was destroyed during a botched launch.
The tinfoil in me wonders if the unit's destruction was intentional, seeing as how Gorbachev considered the project to be too "provocative."
>>28417828
>I'm not sure about the UK
They have 1 at sea (2 during a handover so it's continuous) if the PR is to be believed:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/operations/global/continuous-at-sea-deterrent
I fully agree with your assessment of stealth, Russia always lagged behind in that regard but their boats can dive a lot deeper and are a lot tougher (anecdotally, I've heard that the standard submarine-submarine torpedo would bounce off a Typhoon with barely more than some scratched paint and a startled hydrophone operator). It's not a boomer but Alfa class was downright terrifying, if temperamental.
>I'm sure this will draw plenty of ire from the vatniks but the bottom line is that boomers are something that the US simply does better than anyone else
Based on their track record, I'd say the UK might surpass the the US. They don't in every field but, when they apply themselves, they do a ridiculously good job of building upon technology provided by the Special Relationship.
>>28417849
My bad, I'm not too hot on geopolitics.
>>28417869
I'd suggest reading Hoffman's Dead Hand. If it's to be believed (his sources in the areas I'm more familiar with are pinpoint accurate), Polyus was basically useless because it lacked a laser with the required power. It could theoretically target but it was nothing more than a very precise laser pointer.
I'm more inclined to believe the launch failure was more down to rushing it before Gorbachev could overreach his staff and the design bureaus than intentional sabotage.
>>28414893
Stonehenge better. Blow EVERYTHING out of the sky. It was originally designed to shoot down meteors.
>>28417832
>command guided nuke
I don't think you quite know how ICBMs work,
The only way is to build and deploy enough ABMs.
The USA during the Cold War didn't have the resources to do it then and they certainly don't have enough for it now.
>>28417884
>(anecdotally, I've heard that the standard submarine-submarine torpedo would bounce off a Typhoon with barely more than some scratched paint and a startled hydrophone operator)
typical modern torpedo got warhead around 300kg, are you sure you sub knowledge didn't come from hunt for red october?
>>28417832
I guess not. Care to explain a little?
I know they're fired into space, then re-enter over their target... Are they not controlled by anyone? Is there no 'abort' switch?
>>28417884
I'm who you replied to and I have to disagree about the UK being better than the US at booming, just based on how many we (amerifats) field and how long we've been fielding them. As for scratching the paint off typhoons, if this were still the 80s and we used contact-reliant torps then maybe yeah but the mk48 fish that US subs carry are acoustically-proximity detonated, as well as being most effective when detonated under a sub or ship, using the vessels weight to essentially break it in half rather than relying on direct impact
>>28417975
The tech didn't even exist during the cold war
Interceptors are only NOW becoming possible
>>28417984
Could be total garbage but my understanding is that there's sufficient separation between the pressure hull and the outer hull to prevent a breach. Also, because the hull is titanium it can be made a lot thicker (lower density allows for a thicker hull while still maintaining a buoyancy which can be made positive).
>>28417994
>Are they not controlled by anyone? Is there no 'abort' switch?
None at all, once they're on their way, that's it. TV and movies have lied to you. A very small number can be terminated or redirected in the boost phase but it's generally locked in before launch.
>>28418006
That seems like a fair assessment, no arguments here. Regarding typhoons and torpedoes, it makes sense that my information is out of date, it would take some time to percolate from within the military to the outside, courtesy of retirement and a few bars.
I doubt any submarine is going to be surviving a direct torpedo hit
They aren't battleships
>>28418201
Argentina is leading world research into submersible battleships, this culminated with the successful diving of the ARA Belgrano and continued with the testing of a missile dodging roll maneuver by ARA SantÃsima Trinidad . Once they figure out the surfacing bit they'll be unstoppable.
>>28418269
This is a joke right?
