Can the US stop an ICBM? Cursory googling has shown it cannot. Is there something up their sleeves we don't know about?
No. Simply put there isn't even close to enough interceptors for the amount of warheads that could come down on us.
> Is there something up their sleeves we don't know about?
Cyber warfare, espionage, intelligence
>>29287696
>Can the US stop an ICBM?
Yes.
>Is there something up their sleeves we don't know about?
Yes.
>>29287696
What the hell makes you think that information would be available through a cursory google search?
>>29287696
The best time to stop an ICBM is during the early boost phase, when it's still slow, heavy, and a single target. The further along the flight path it is, the harder it is to hit. Once the reentry vehicles have been deployed, you're down to prayers and THAADs.
>>29287726
Basically, military blogs reporting about Missile Defense Agency's failures. Could be misinfo.
>>29287737
>reentry vehicle
So you're saying our current strategy is to have our shit run into their shit directly and hope to knock it off course?
>>29287737
whats so difficult about shooting down a ICBM after re-entery?
They are still missiles, you just need a fast and accurate enough missile to hit it.
>>29287754
Being fast and accurate at the same time is hard dingus
>>29287754
>whats so difficult about shooting down a ICBM after re-entery?
Good luck hitting a target that small making a Mach 6+ beeline for the ground.
>>29287769
Am I a complete fucking retard to assume that this shouldn't be that difficult considering the computing power available and the trillions of dollars the US military receives for RnD?
>>29287769
>>29287785
ICBMs are pretty accurate and fast too.
All that speed has to have a drawback right?
>>29287739
Right clearly those public website's owners have blue eagle and talk all about their work online.
>>29287787
Just because a horse eats a lot of oats doesn't mean it'll win a race.
>>29287696
The new Russian s500 can shoot down anything.
Russia truly is the greatest state on earth
>>29287804
>All that speed has to have a drawback right?
The ablative heat shield technology invented for ballistic missiles was difficult to develop, and is optimized to do two jobs: protect the warhead from the heat of entry, and go really, really fast towards the target. The entry vehicle is very visible on sensors, so it's not hard to track, but creating an intercept course against a target as small as a warhead and not missing is hard.
>>29287804
I suppose the difference is ICBMs are hitting stationary targets that have a gigantic surface area. And if they're carrying nukes, accuracy probably isn't a concern.
Interceptors have to hit moving targets that have an infinitely smaller surface area.
>>29287696
They started working on this problem for a long time. Ever heard of Project Nike? Watch the old Bell Labs film reels about the early days of nuclear bomber intercept systems, and how they morphed into Anti-Ballistic Missile systems. They were able to come up with some amazing early warning methods even before the advent of the satellite-based approach. The speeds at which those rockets accelerate and how they are controlled are wonders of technology from a pre-microprocessor world.
We came up with quite a few ways to approach the problem after those initial steps, then when the MIRV burst out on the scene, we signed some treaties with the USSR to limit development of this technology. Supposedly, if you can counter a nuclear strike effectively, then the threat of a nuclear war becomes diminished. But at the same time that increases its likelihood of happening, because what's to stop you from launching when you think the enemy can counteract most of it.
I will bet $5 that we never actually stopped developing ABMs, we just got WAY more secret about it. Then shit like the norks started fucking around, and we pulled out of a few of those treaties that said we couldn't play with ABMs. The real question is how effective would they actually be... who knows. If worst korea ever tried anything, I'm sure we wouldn't hold back an from attempting to intercept it.
>>29287785
>6+
more like
mach 24
>>29287822
>I suppose the difference is ICBMs are hitting stationary targets that have a gigantic surface area. And if they're carrying nukes, accuracy probably isn't a concern.
Nope, accuracy is very much a concern. Against hardened targets that need to be destroyed with nuclear warheads, the closer to target you are, the lower the yield needed to kill the target. The smaller the warhead, the more warheads you can deploy on each missile, and the smaller the missile can be for the job. The smaller the missiles are, the easier you can pack them onto a ballistic missile submarine, and by optimizing for accuracy, you've reduced the cost of your entire nuclear weapons delivery system.
>>29287696
If someone tries to ICBM the core of the earth traveling through the center of North America, yes, the US can stop it.
Someone wake up Oppenheimer. I would think he'd know a lot about this.
>>29287833
Thanks for the detailed response.
I'm starting to see "Bell Labs" creep up in every TS-type discussion across various industries and subjects. Interesting.
>>29287842
I need to learn the difference between missiles and warheads and how one missile can have multiple warheads. And deploy them.
>>29287696
one icbm?
...Yeah pretty sure we could, it'd be a shitshow because it's never been done hot before, only tests with preplanned trajectories and all that bullshit.
Now if it was all hands on deck shit shit the russians are coming?
Nah, we don't have enough systems that could do it, but neither does anyone that would try and nuke us, so... nukes all around I guess.
>>29287862
>>29287876
So the actual warhead is delivered by an even smaller rocket that detached from the missile used to initiate the trajectory. No wonder it's impossible to hit.
>>29287894
That thing is moving on Mach 10 on its final run and throwing out chaff and decoys
>>29287894
Not impossible, just really, really hard.
>>29287853
Bell Labs, as in AT&T was one of the most advanced research groups that ever graced the face of the earth. When your phone company has a government-sanctioned monopoly over most of the US, you tend to rake in a shit ton of money, and a shit ton of government contracts.
The amount of cool shit they came up with is astounding. Go watch the old film reels about early warning systems and Project Nike, and you'll see what I mean.
>>29287894
Not impossible, just a pain in the ass, though to even the odds the idea is to hit the warhead with a small nuke to fuck it up before it hits its target.
1. Hitting something that small and fast (which only purpose is to hit the target) with a projectile is very hard, and besides if you only want to change its trajectory, you must be sure that it won't hit your allies. Heck, even nuclear cloud can fuck you up badly.
2. Which leads into another conclusion - you really don't need to hit US if you want to harm them. Hit Mexico, and watch the chaos - nuclear cloud, destroyed oil fields, mass of refugees, ect.
>>29287979
>Hit Mexico, and watch the chaos - nuclear cloud
Not really as bad as people would think surprisingly.
>destroyed oil fields,
And? Not nearly as big a problem as one would thing. The middle east could get glassed and the world would still keep turning when it comes to oil.
> mass of refugees, ect.
That actually would be the biggest problem.
>Heck, even nuclear cloud can fuck you up badly
Assuming you mean fallout... not really that big of a problem if you shoot down the nuke with a nuke, air-bursts produce minimal fallout.
>>29287696
Could we stop A nuke? Yes
>>29287833
What's the dumbed-down tl;dr on all the different Nikes and why they existed?
>>29287862
This might interest you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SObYcIRTlI
>>29287853
That's New Jersey for ya, we love getting our fingers in every little pot.
Fun fact, there's an old demolished Nike base in the Watchung Reservation by the old bell labs. Maybe one day I'll head over there with a metal detector.
>>29287901
>chaff and decoys
It also has decoy warheads.
Even with one missile you're going to have a hard time.
>>29288024
>What's the dumbed-down tl;dr on all the different Nikes and why they existed?
Not that anon but it was dependent on intended use, the hercules on the left is a surface to surface missile, while the ajax on the right is an anti-bomber missile.
>>29288057
furthermore the hawk (the cluserty one) is an anti air missil, with the seargent (the one behind it) is a tactical ballistic missile for supporting troops on the ground, while the spartan (tallest one in the back row) is an anti ballistic missile, with the pershing to the right of it being another surface to surface missile for theater level operations with the Lacrosse ( little one off in the back with the wings) being a short range ballistic missile.
why not fire a scramjet out of a railgun that's connected to a warship?
>>29287811
How much is 50 cents converted to Rubles?
>>29288435
About 34 Rubles
>>29287696
Putin pls.
>>29288139
You forgot to add cup holders
Conceptually, the defence against ballistic missiles is basic: Detect the launch, track it and intercept it with a killer vehicle. In practise, however, this is enormously technically difficult and cost-prohibitive. It is also much easier and cheaper to develop ballistic missiles equipped with counter-measures against killer-vehicles. Development of ballistic missiles cost millions of dollars while development of a defence sums to billions of dollars.
Because the ballistic missiles have a variety of ranges and capabilities, they can be classified by their operational range (short, medium, inter-medium, long and intercontinental. These classification are important because the farthest a missile travel, the more speed and altitude will have to reach (with long range ones having to leave and then re-enter the Earth's atmosphere). It is best to visualise these different ballistic missiles classification as operating in different layers. To counter a specific layer, you have to design a specific Ballistic Defence system that matches that layer. There's no technology that allows you one-size, jack of all trades, interceptor. The "cost-exchange ratio" between interceptors and very simple warheads is between 4 and 12 interceptor for each ICBM.
ICBM flight path can be divided in 3 phases:
Boosting phase (3-5 minutes).
Sub-orbital space-flight phase (25 minutes).
Terminal Re-entry phase (3 minutes).
Boosting phase is the most simple since you have a bigger and slower target but it requires being very close to the launching site. Early missiles required more than 3 hours of preparation before they were ready to launch and could not be in permanent alert due the corrosive nature of the fuels employed. Hence the need of building missile silos in secret sites capable of resisting conventional air-strikes and even an indirect hit from a nuclear attack. Modern ballistic missiles can be launched in 5 minutes or less.
>>29288592
The mid-course space-flight offers the longest opportunity to intercept an incoming missile. During this phase, the missile stops thrusting and follows a predictable trajectory. However it also offers more opportunities for counter-measures. Very simple decoys such as metallized balloons, shrouds, chaff, electronic decoys can fool a killer-vehicle. Due the lack of drag in space, all these decoys will travel at the same speed as the warhead regardless of their individual mass. Infra-red discrimination is also ineffective since a simple battery is more than enough to hide the heat produced by a nuclear warhead. All this means that you need an extremely sophisticated multi-layered tracking complex that will very easy to fool and susceptible to an electronic attack. Alternatively, ballistic missiles can be equipped with sub-munitions. Instead of one warhead you have multiple ones (MIRV) that can easily overwhelm the defence and hit more than one target. The use of MIRV makes ABM measures economically prohibitive and completely ineffective.
Most operative missile defences today (Moscow ABM, Patriot and the former Safeguard) are designed for the re-entry phase. In this phase, the atmosphere produces drag and thus the counter-measures lose a bit of effectiveness. However, the warhead quickly reaches speeds up to Mach 25 and the modern ones can maneuver. Therefore, defensive systems designed to intercept ballistic missiles during the re-entry phase must be very close to the intended target. Therefore, defensive systems must be very close to the missile's target in order to defend against the attack, can only defend a very specific area, have limited/no mobility and can only engage the lower end of the ballistic spectrum.
>>29287696
This is my entire job. I can't say much on the subject, but if Russia for example goes full retard, about 12-15% of warheads will succeed in hitting a target.
Over.
>>29288601
I'm sure of it, kid.
I remember reading on /k/ that when the US ran tests, they managed to intercept 22% of the missiles. But that's a controlled test and the number of projectiles was small, so if Russia would actually somehow manage to surprise the US with a completely undetected nuclear strike the results would be way worse.
Russians probably have better results, but the difference is so small it wouldn't really mater in an all out nuclear war.
The current US missile defense system could stop a handful of targets.
Exactly how many is up for debate and depends on many variables, but it is likely between 2-12.
>>29288651
Good morning, Oppenheimer. Two to twelve sounds like what I realistically expected from my armchair; enough to handle an accident or rogue action, but not enough to make a difference if shit really hits the fan.
>>29287876
Can someone explain why the third stage rocket is located above the payload?
>>29287726
What the hell makes you think some super secret weapon exists?
>>29288679
The third stage sits in the center of the RV bus.
Picture a doughnut around your finger with your finger being the third stage.
>>29288679
>Can someone explain why the third stage rocket is located above the payload?
The engineers were clever, and it's an efficient way to use the (very limited) available space.
>>29288688
>>29288690
Ah, that makes sense. Was starting to think its only job was to push away the fairing, but that seemed highly inpractical.
>>29288435
>9000
>>29288666
Nice get. Also, isn't that the idea? We keep a lid on the Norks but not start another arms race with Russia.
Didn't they make this as a possible anti nuke system.
>>29288761
>Russia
You mean China? Also that arms race already started. Look at their naval build-up.
>>29288761
Building an effective missile defense system capable of preventing your opponent from hitting you is dangerous. It is likely to provoke the very conflict you wish to prevent.
>>29288800
But, the norks tho...
I'm not advocating provoking a major nuclear power.
Engineers are going to be more worried about hypersonic cruise missiles than traditional ballistic ones.
>>29287747
No, THAAD pulvorizes the warheads pretty effectively when it hits.
Our old strategy was to send neutron bombs up in the air to intercept them, but we nixed that in the 70s.
>>29288905
How much is 50 cents converted to whatever the chinks use?
>>29288923
5 Chinese yuan ~$1 USD last I saw
>>29288761
We used to invest heavily, just see Reagan's Sdi defense system. But then it proved expensive, and the idea that America would be nuke-proof while the soviets were sitting ducks threatened peace.
Imagine if you had a Forcefield like in halo, and you had a belt of grenades and ammo, and your opponent had the same ammo and grenades, but no shield. Realistically there's no incentive for you to NOT use guns or grenades in any given fight, because the Forcefield is going to eat up any damage to you while your weapons are still being deadly to your enemy.
Your enemy however may wish to try to kill you ASAP before the shield is even deployed, because they know their arsenal is only going to be useful for a short time.
>>29287833
>The speeds at which those rockets accelerate and how they are controlled are wonders of technology from a pre-microprocessor world.
Case in point
>>29288908
can it hit them after re entry?
>>29288923
Is important to remember that is not literally 50 cents US, but the equivalent of .5 yuan
It's the threat of massive retaliation that stops the ICBM from being launched in the first place.
>>29288993
I know all of that already. But stopping the Norks is different than trying to stop Russia or China. Even if for no other reason than the Norks are hilariously irrelevant except for their three or four nukes, and that fact makes their manchild leader unstable.
Since he is likely to throw a temper tantrum to get attention, while not having nearly enough weapons to mount a threat the way Russia can, shouldn't we have a missile defense system that can keep a lid on him?
In short, I don't think the equation that works for major nuclear powers is the same when dealing with an irrational leader in charge of an entertainingly overmatched country, whose only real threat to anyone not sharing a land border with it is a handful of primitive nukes on Iranian rockets, that he just might use to distract the world and his own subjects from how comically inept he is.
>>29288601
My dad works for Nintendo.
Considering I just found out that the Gov has a plasma weapons program that went dark in like 95 for no other reason than that it worked, it wouldn't surprise me now if we had something up our sleeve.
>>29289129
The size of the arsenal you are defending against is not a factor.
As your ability to prevent any retaliation increases, the drive for your opponent to strike before they lose their ability to increases.
It doesnt make a strike a sure thing, but it is destabilizing.
>>29289146
>just found out about MARAUDER program
I agree with you, we probably have a Shit ton of expiremental weapons that are in operable conditions we may never know about until we absolutely have to.
>>29287754
They are fast as shit, also there may be MIRVs
>>29289331
>there may be MIRVs
>may
I could be wrong, but I don't think there's a single Russian ICBM that has just one warhead.
>>29289340
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START#Status_of_the_strategic_forces_of_Russia_and_the_U.S.
Both Topol and Topol-M are armed with a single warhead. This doesn't mean penaid is not deployed though.
>>29288993
>Imagine if you had a Forcefield like in halo, and you had a belt of grenades and ammo, and your opponent had the same ammo and grenades, but no shield. Realistically there's no incentive for you to NOT use guns or grenades in any given fight, because the Forcefield is going to eat up any damage to you while your weapons are still being deadly to your enemy.
The fuck? There are plenty of incentives not to kill someone in that situation, such as the fact that you arent a murdering psychopath.
>tanks are immune to small arms fire
>tank crews therefore have no incentive not to rampage around killing police officers because they have no access to AT weapons
>>29288867
best korea doesnt have a launch vehicle capable of reaching US territory
>>29289051
THAAD supposedly is, the Sprint missiles were designed to as well but did it with neutron flux instead of kinetic force.
>>29289168
>>29289129
My guess is if Kim went to hit with a nuke, we wouldn't nuke back.
Having a nuke chucked at us would let us justify whatever the hell we want. China would probably step aside sheepishly when we play the "almost got nuked" at the emergency UN conference that would come of it.
>>29289129
Iran has no strategic interest in providing north korea with long range missiles. Besides, transporting those missiles would be difficult
>>29289331
You should be able to make interceptors that are just as fuck and give them MIRV warheads too to intercept the incoming MIRVs.
>>29289146
>>29289195
The problem with marauder was the weapons were only effective in a vacuum. atmospheric interference quickly degraded the plasma
>>29290120
see >>29290103
if kim gets nukey he will strike south korea or japan
SDI has been a pipedream since the invention of MIRV. Most scientis working on it were in it for pure reseach, not because they thought it would ever work.
>>29287696
Nope.
That's why Russian still has not been regime change'd.
>>29287754
It's the size of an ice cone machine moving at 17,000 mph.
>>29288601
That's pretty optimistic.
>>29290146
the technocracy could have manipulated consensual reality to prevent paradox interference of plasma weapons.
>>29290329
im pretty sure we have the tech to track small objects moving at very high speeds.
Last i checked we had CIWS style devices that could shoot down 155mm artillery shells mid flight. I dont remember whether they used a laser though.
>>29290802
CIWS has a range of maybe 1-2 kilometres.
Considering that most nukes are designed to detonate a couple hundred metres in the air thats kinda bad. Add the fact that your average artillery shell doesn´t get faster than mach 2 and the average ICBM goes over mach 6 and you´ll see that CIWS is shit against nukes.
>>29288029
Decoy warheads take up bus space that could be used for real warheads.
>>29291517
Thanks to the SALT treaties, space on ICBMs for warheads isn't a precious commodity
>>29287787
Yes
>>29290124
They are known to collaborate on missile and warhead technology. Which is more strategically important anyway.
>>29291531
Are non critical radiological devices covered under SALT?
>>29291917
sort of. START, the successor to the SALT treaties, covers number of deployed warheads, but also the number of missiles, bombers, and subs.
The cap on deployed warheads is the bottleneck no matter how one nation were to deploy their nuclear weapons
>>29287754
>whats so difficult about shooting down a ICBM after re-entery?
Bitches don't know about my penetration aids.
>>29290117
THAAD can barely not shit itself intercepting a back-engineered Scud.
>>29290802
Last time I checked artillery shells don't fall on your head at Mach 20+ amid a metric shitton of penaid.
>>29292078
well maybe they should
>>29290146
>He doesn't know about the moonbase
Honestly, till it happens. We will never know.
detonate another nuke in air to detonate the baddies one :^)
>>29292217
>detonate another nuke in air to detonate the baddies one :^)
Welcome to 60's ABM
>>29292217
an airburst Nike beats the hell out of whatever it was destroying was going to do
>>29287696
>Is there something up their sleeves we don't know about?
Installing a world government to take over control of all nuclear devices.
>>29287833
>But at the same time that increases its likelihood of happening, because what's to stop you from launching when you think the enemy can counteract most of it.
That one point you got wrong. The enemy can counteract most of it is an argument AGAINST the first strike actually. The worry is that if home team thinks that WE can counteract their counterstrike and survive it, we're more likely to start something.
It works the same logic both ways, it works for both sides, but in exactly the opposite to how you said in that one sentence. I am assuming a typo of some sort.
>>29292605
However, if the enemy thinks you're building a system to counterattack their nuclear weapons, they are more likely to strike to destroy it before it's finished- use it or lose it.
which is why Russia was so butthurt about the "missile shield" Bush wanted to put in Poland.
>>29288601
That honestly sounds about right, but even if only ten percent get through and you've got 2000+ warheads that's still over 200+ warheads reaching their target and still more than enough to make a good day bad.
>>29288597
Thankyou for the detailed reply.
>>29288139
>why not fire a scramjet out of a railgun that's connected to a warship?
Because it's expensive and highly impractical as an effective countermeasure if the Russians decide to go for the royal flush and empty every silo.
>>29290084
>The fuck? There are plenty of incentives not to kill someone in that situation, such as the fact that you arent a murdering psychopath.
Good, now convince Russia that you're not a murdering psychopath with a grudge against them. And do it before they decide to test how good your forcefield really is.
A nuke? Sure. ALL the nukes? Hell no.
Even if they work with 100% reliability, America's ABMs would barely put a dent in a full-scale attack by a major nuclear power like Russia or China (the system is not really designed for these threats anyways, and is positioned mainly to mitigate a limited attack from North Korea or Iran). Also, realistically these ABMs won't achieve 100% interception rate, and under realistic combat conditions (vs. a Nork-tier adversary) I would give the system about 30-50% odds of succeeding in any given engagement.
>>29289051
THAAD (and to a lesser extent, PAC-3) are terminal interceptors designed specifically to intercept warheads after reentry. However terminal interception is generally the most challenging phase of flight to achieve interception, especially against maneuverable MIRVs. If you can intercept the missile during the ascent stage before it reaches it's desired trajectory and releases MIRVs, that's easily the most favorable though rarely the most practical (rare exceptions being with North Korea by AEGIS vessels stationed off the coast).
>>29289080
What stops nuclear nations from nuking turd-world countries, then?
>>29288597
>However, the warhead quickly reaches speeds up to Mach 25
The warhead achieves that speed shortly after launch. It's "hypersonic" the entire duration of midcourse flight.
>>29292941
it's bad for PR
>>29292941
>>29292973
After you detonate your first nuke against a country, then every nation on the planet will start developing nukes.
Saudi Arabia, Philippines, Indonesia, Poland, Egypt, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Iran, Mexico, etc. will ALL immediately start develop nuclear weapons almost immediately. And most will fully develop and test warheads in under 5 years.
I think our best bet would be to launch a nuke at the incoming nuke, and detonate it when it gets near to the attacking nuke.
>>29293211
genius
>>29293297
Isn't that our strategy with incoming nuclear bomber planes? We detonate nukes in the middle of their formations?
Just do the same with incoming missiles. We don't need too much accuracy.
>>29287696
>Can the US stop an ICBM?
No.
> Is there something up their sleeves we don't know about?
Yes, but it won't matter.
>>29293153
>Iran
>will immediately start develop nuclear weapons
Anon, I don't know how to break this to you...
>>29293211
yeah, it's called a soft kill.
>>29293364
Genie missile mang
>>29289034
The way it starts glowing white hot really says it all.
>>29290120
First of all nork ICBM tech isn't even close to modern stuff, think German V2 with Down syndrome and therefore could be intercepted easily. Second the response would be entirely reliant of the success of the strike. If it actually managed to hit the we would likely glass them. A launch at the US no matter if it's hits or not will lead to invasion though.
>>29287754
>hai gaiz shoot the missile down in teh atmosphere
Hurr nuclear explosion durr
>>29293364
Bomber formations aren't really a thing anymore.
>>29290120
>My guess is if Kim went to hit with a nuke, we wouldn't nuke back.
Depends, but there are many scenarios where we would.
>>29293922
>>29293922
>Misinformation about how nuclear warheads work: the post
>>29293922
>Nukes are basically like canisters of nitroglycerin and shooting them will cause them to detonate
A little too much Fallout there kiddo.
>>29288666
Hello, Satan.
>>29288770
Is..... is that real? That's basically all the dakka.
>>29293922
are you shooting it with a neutron ray gun?
even then it probably wouldnt detonate (unless it has an emergency self destruct sequence)
>>29293475
>>>29293153
>>Iran
>>will immediately start develop nuclear weapons
>Anon, I don't know how to break this to you..
>>29293475
I can tell them. Go back and crawl under your bed/desk/door frame and stay clear of the windows..
>>29288139
Because we haven't been able to deploy a scramjet that doesn't destroy itself in flight
>>29293153
>After you detonate your first nuke against a country, then every nation on the planet will start developing nukes.
Well, it took two, actually.
>>29287833
My grandpa worked on one of those sites. His stories are pretty neat.
>>29293531
That made me erect.
>>29294243
The Metal Storm Project. From what I know it's an Australian made prototype weapon that was designed to combat anti ship missiles and possibly nukes by firing electronically activated waves of up to 1000000 bullets at a time(they also made and tested 40mm and larger designs for anti tank roles. Design on it went dark a few years back and I haven't heard anything of it since. Makes sense for nukes as if you where to shred a warhead traveling at mach 10 I don't believe it would make it to its intended target.
>>29294243
http://www.metalstorm.com/firestorm.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFjGbOyd2ek
Links for your pleasure.
>>29299006
>went dark
Lol no. It's a fun concept but militarily useless. For all practical purposes, a claymore mine does the same thing far cheaper.
>>29299023
It's still pretty impressive, But watching videos produced by the inventor or fanbois isn't exactly how you learn about the very real limitations of that system
>>29287833
even got a song about it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGKiYDE8Z2M
>>29293364
because air detonation makes a really bad EMP to fuck the civilians electrical infrastructure over a very large area.
>>29289146
yeah, they always have something
stuff like the F117 was around for about 10 years before the govt said oh yeah, it actually does exist, here's a pic
>>29292795
you mean like the Cuban missile crisis?
>>29299326
>electronics get fried
or
>everyone dies in a giant ball of plasma and the surrounding fire storm
i dunno, i am addicted to the internet...
>>29299384
well that depends on how high the nuke was when i detonated. i just spent 4 hours interneting straight.
kill me.
>>29299410
>when i detonated
oh shit, nukes are sentient and post on 4chan...
>>29287737
>THAADs
You mean the system that hasn't intercepted anything larger than an SRBM?
Literally all it's proven to kill is fucking Scuds.
>>29287696
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense
>Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) is the United States' anti-ballistic missile system for intercepting incoming warheads in space, during the midcourse phase of ballistic trajectory flight. It is a major component of the American missile defense strategy to counter ballistic missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) carrying nuclear, chemical, biological or conventional warheads.
>>29287853
Because Bell Labs is probably one of the most important groups in history by helping bring society into the modern computer age by inventing the transistor in 1948.
>>29299285
>implying claymores have long range
>>29287696
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlujizeNNQM
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f4e5ef3811674b3f97071a4c104fce3c/apnewsbreak-personnel-nuke-base-probed-drug-use
>>29299470
And terminal phase ICBMs.
To answer OP, yes, we can.
Yes. President Donald Trump will be best m8s with Putin.
>>29287696
I don't see why we wouldn't have some kind of space warfare tech in orbit by now. I bet the USAF has a militarized space shuttle of some kind. Fucking moonraker up in this bitch
>>29301163
There are treaties we are supposed to respect. In theory.
>I bet the USAF has a militarized space shuttle of some kind
man they don't even keep that one a secret
A few maybe but you need specialist systems to intercept them and they are expensive
>>29301183
>shitty expensive low payload unmanned mini-shuttle
absolutely disgusting
>>29287696
Satellites with frickin' laser beams maaaannnn
>>29301163
It exists
>>29287713
>Yuri
>>29293922
Only if you're using a nuclear explosion to shoot it down in the first place >>29289034.
.
>>29301900
It's probably more proof of concept and testbed than a heavily used piece of equipment.
If we know about it, I guarantee you they already have it's replacement flying.
>>29290329
What kind of fucking comparison is that.
Who the hell knows what an Ice Cone Machine is sized at.
>>29302507
A mini fridge. He should have said mini fridge.
