We've spent so much building ways to deliver nuclear devices around the world, do you think we are close to being able to shoot them down before they hit?
Because if we can, what is stopping people from entering conventional warfare once more?
Faster ICBMs that are harder to shoot down...
>>29587584
Lasers
Nowhere near close.
Okay.
so we launch the missile which goes into orbit.
and then the guided warhead meteors down and hits the target
You cant shoot it down
itd be like shooting a meteorite
>>29587595
>Lasers
>Against something designed to resist 6200°F
>>29587510
We have some systems we THINK could shoot down a nuclear armed ICBM. We aren't too sure about that once you throw in MIRVs and chaff and bullshit. The problem is there are REALLY strict rules against launching ICBMs all over the planet and then trying to shoot them down. So we haven't had any real experience shooting down ICBMs so everything is just theory.
If those theories are wrong, if a SLBM comes from the wrong direction, if there are too many missiles in the air, and number of things, and millions could die.
So we don't fuck around with nuclear armed nations.
>>29587649
we use REALLY BIG lasers
>>29587689
what if they use BIGGER NUKES?
There are ways. We've progressed from this, but exactly how far is classified.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvZGaMt7UgQ
vid related, carried a nuclear warhead to fuck up ICBM at Mach Fuck.
>>29587510
yes.
we have kinetic kill interceptors.
they launch from alaska to intercept an arctic trajectory.
they go really fucking fast and hit the icbm before it drops the mirvs, blowing it up.
they are tested all the time.
a good guy interceptor is launched and a bad guy rocket is launched, and the interceptor almost always hits the target.
or they launch from hawaii to the marshal islands and hit what's basically a silhouette target.
t. dad who does this shit
>>29588162
>almost always
can't have almost with nukes.
It's do or die (literally)
Did someone say ICBMs?
>>29588193
when I say almost, I mean that of like, 100 tests, only 1 has failed and that was cause somebody fucked up during the launch prep sequence, it wasn't the systems fault.
>>29588162
You're delusional. Interceptors can't realistically get more than a fraction of missiles in a real world scenario.
>>29588219
That's completely and totally false. The success ratio isn't even remotely fucking close to that level.
>>29588219
So.
Let's say, russia fires all ICBM is has over and over until depleted.
Does the US have enough to counter everything?
>>29588220
OP asked if we could intercept them.
we can.
granted, it would only be like, 50 or so, but 50 nukes is still a pretty big amount.
>>29588236
no. not even close.
they would probably calculate and intercept the ones that hit the most important targets, like the white house, our fallback facilities, vandenburg, etc
>>29588258
>granted, it would only be like, 50 or so, but 50 nukes is still a pretty big amount.
There aren't even 50 anti-ballistic missiles in service.
>>29588281
yeah, meant 40.
but still, same concept.
waiting for oppenheimer to come and provide more info than I ever could
>>29588295
Same concept as what? That's not even a single submarine's worth of warheads. Russia has 1,648 nuclear warheads ready to be used instantly, with another 4,500 in reserve.
>>29587510
Metal Gears
>>29588327
This.
we have so many nuclear weapons you cannot shoot more than a handful down.
You all forget in a nuclear war everything will be launched or nothing will be launched
>>29588327
it doesn't hit the warheads, it hits the missiles themselves.
basically, 1 A-ICBM can kill like 12 MIRVs.
it's neat shit.
>>29588355
right, I get that.
the A-ICBMs would be burned up so fast, but we have them.
and they would only be used to shoot down the missiles and warheads headed to very important targets, like the fallback facility we have in the mountains (i forget the name), the enduring stockpile, vandenburg, shit like that.
>>29588355
>Russia fires forty nukes
>They get shot down
>Well we gave it our best war's over then
>>29588375
It's a midcourse intercept system. They have no way of knowing what vehicles are heading where.
>>29587510
Its goal is to explode so why waste time trying to blow them up a bit earlier?
>>29587510
Well we are capable of shooting down many of the MIRVs, however a saturation attack is able to break though.
>>29588387
Kek.
Exactly.
More like
>Okay guys its time
>Putin enters codes and targets are selected
>Signal sent to silos and submarines
>5mins later, 1,648 weapons of ass destruction are hurdling from the upper atmosphere into your local metropolitan area
>Meanwhile, as you are being incinerated, you realize that you are not being as incinerated because 0.02% of the nukes were destroyed.
>Thank god for our missile defense systems
>>29587510
OPenheimer, please save this shitty thread...
>>29588375
>enduring "hedge" stockpile
>important target
>implying Russians will waste a perfectly good spare warhead on nukes that don't even have launch vehicles
>implying they won't be using it as an extra cherry on top to kill command/control/communications bases or launch facilities that actually pose an immediate threat
>>29588162
>my dad who works at nintendo said...
>>29588434
What exactly is the authority of this guy? Does he work in the business or do people just believe him because he has a nuclear themed tripcode
>>29587689
>>29588125
<<HERE COMES THE SNOW>>
>>29588455
Nuclear policy IIRC
>>29588455
He worked for the government in some capacity, someone from his work let on that they knew it was him so he had to leave.
>>29588430
>1,648 warheads
>metropolitan area
This is not how you nuclear war, we've been over this multiple threads.
>1,648 warheads
>communications nodes
>command bunkers
>missile launch facilities
>submarine resupply ports
>bomber airfields
With the current accuracy of treaty-limited nuclear weapons, targeting is entirely military in nature. You bitchslap the other country hard enough that they can no longer shoot back. Destroying their cities just makes you unpopular internationally.
>>29588434
Someone doxxed him at his work and he lost his clearance which meant his job.
We won't be seeing the real OPenheimer again anytime soon.
RIP
>>29588455
He's been posting consistently for years; you can just make up long winded shit posts for that long without some actual knowledge. And then recently he was found irl and his position confirmed he knew his shit
>>29588471
Thats not how it works.
You dont give a flying fuck about treatises or being popular in a MAD nuclear war scenario
>Guys we can only nuke the military bases because nuking cities will make us look bad in the international community
>>29588455
He houses a minuteman in his ass
>>29588471
There are plenty of nukes for every metropolitan area and every single military installation
>>29588471
Luckily the cities aren't the targets.
>>29588481
nah, he's around. or at least someone with similar knowledge is, he pops up on nuke threads as soon as they get traction.
saw him in a thread like 2 weeks ago I think.
fucking sucks someone doxed him, that's just evil.
and since he lost his clearance and his job with govt, no more govt work ever.
sorry OPenheimer.
>>29588502
That image has been confirmed in multiple threads to be mostly BS and speculation. Stop posting it.
>>29588515
Cities will be targeted shithead. Common knowledge and has been discussed in depth.
There are enough nukes for every target to be hit multiple times
>>29588511
Well, the first guy who found him just posted something like "I found who he is, but I'm going to keep it to myself like a respectful human being." and then other anons followed the trail and weren't so nice.
>>29588529
why?
why waste the warheads?
I'd be more concerned with hitting the same silo or control center multiple times to make sure it's dead, instead of frying civilians.
it's not like draftable population matters, it's a nuclear war, everyone's gonna die.
>>29588515
that image looks completely reasonable to me faggot.
Just seeing the targets in my small county means whoever made that did a lot of research. The two targets are of an oil reserve facility and an emergency presidential runway/highway in the middle of fucking nowhere.
There's no way someone just guessing or not doing proper research would know those places exist.
>>29588554
Bottom line is that it doesnt matter if cities are directly hit or not.
the fallout would kill the vast majority of the population in the ensuing weeks if not days.
And many military targets are also cities.
>>29588554
>everyone's gonna die.
How is that meant to happen if you don't hit the cities?
>>29588572
Because they will launch every nuke in their arsenal
many targets happen to be major cities
and the fallout would kill literally every fucking body.
>>29587510
failure rates. The best publically known AA defense system is the Jewish iron dome, and it's only 90% effective against world war two rockets.
If you miss ten percent of a nuclear salvo, you're still erased from history.
Now, ICBM's are spacecraft. Sputnik was a hollowed out ICBM warhead. You're shooting something coming down from space, not shitistan next door. That involves mach 5 and up. That makes the failure rate significantly higher.
>>29588572
fallout, and bases being in cities, also the mass panic and buildings falling down.
sure, some cities may be hit because hey, extra nukes, but they aren't that high up on the list, there's no reason for it.
15,000mph warhead coming straight down is an extremely hard target to hit
>>29588554
>>29588569
>Bottom line is that it doesnt matter if cities are directly hit or not.
This. Imagine the food transportation goes down because the government, major transportation centers, ports, rail yards and airports are annihilated. And all food exposed to air on farms is unimaginably toxic. And anything that grows in that soil is unimaginably toxic and can't be cleaned.
You just converted every city into a mix of Racoon City and Detroit. You don't need to bomb them, they will destroy themselves in days.
>>29588658
Id rather be directly atomized by a nuclear weapon then die in the ensuing days where the sun is gone and it rains radioactive superfine ash.
>>29588619
not if you have amazing computer that can do an insane amount of math in a very short amount of time.
You also don't have to hit it perfectly. Just gotta get close enough.
>>29588658
plus, water would be useless, roads are done, and there would be roving bands of people stealing and raping their way to survive.
the nukes may not kill you but the world after will.
>>29588677
No such computer exists.
Nothing is around that can destroy the nuclear warhead once it detaches and starts its descent to it's target.
>>29588677
this
detonation near the rocket renders it useless.
This aint Hollywood so you dont have a big nuclear explosion when you shoot the rocket.
>>29587649
THERMONUCLEAR LASERS
WE MAKE LASERS THAT ARE AS HOT AS THE SUN
SO HOT THEY BURN AWAY THE ATMOSPHERE
>>29588730
>detonation near the rocket renders it useless
You are extremely underestimating how hardened the warhead is.
It can withstand 6500*F and 15,000mph delivery. It is EMP hardened as well.
A conventional explosive near it would do exactly nothing.
>>29588730
The rocket is moving at about mach five. And you'd need to catch it in a head-on approach.
Or fifteen from a single missile.
>>29587510
We should seriously consider bringing up that Star Wars program when Reagan was president. Just arm satelites with anti-air weapons capable of destroying nukes.
>>29588763
ABM missiles deployed by both the Soviet Union and the US were designed to weaken the warhead's protective cover to the point it will fall apart in midflight. No big kaboom.
>>29588771
jesus christ how horrifying
>>29588778
Trump will do Star Wars II: Attack of the Drones and create a whole new system of satellite and land based Anti-ICBM lasers and missiles.
>>29588771
head on?
I thought you could just frag the main platform the MIRVs sit on before they detach.
>>29588763
it's not an explosion, it's a kinetic kill.
basically, you're shooting a .223 at a 45-70 in flight to stop it.
>>29588802
Thats a theoretical concept and right now all we have is a limited amount of anti-ICBM missiles.
>>29588796
America and Russia versus the world will be WWIII.
>>29588818
it's not really theoretical, they're tested and deployed, with a like, ~80% success rate iirc.
not the best at all, not even great, but it's there.
>>29588821
This turns me on
>>29588821
>Russo-American alliance vs the Communist Hordes of East Asia and the Islamic Caliphate of Europe.
>We fight alongside our russian brothers for liberty and freedom, mowing down hordes of jihadist scum and chicoms with our laser rifles
>>29588865
and suddenly, I'm erect
>>29588162
There are missiles that are fractional orbit systems that can lob a missile from the south to partially defeat the north looking radar systems. Literally an orbital platform that can drop a mirv payload or a bus of mirvs to any point on Earth.
>>29588295
So maybe you'd like to tell me my Russia always has a hair up its ass about the European missile shield?
>>29588875
orbital nukes are illegal by like 4 treaties now, right?
not just using them, but having them and developing them is a war crime.
>>29588569
>>29588430
Reposting best Op reply:
>The Russians currently have about 1500 strategic warheads in service. The number fluctuates to some degree, due to maintenance cycles and other issues, but 1500 is a good place to start. The US has 450 MM III silos in service. It is a common misconception that you need 450 warheads to attack this force. You actually need many more. When you develop an attack option, your first task is to determine how sure you need to be of a target's destruction. For something like an early warning radar you might only need a 70% probability that the target will be destroyed.
>For a silo, it is probably 90%.So the Russian planner will look at his weapons and their capabilities, and use a mathematical formula to determine how many warheads he needs to send. You look at the WLS (warhead lethality score) to see if the warhead, given its yield, can even destroy the target, if it goes off on target. You also look at the overall reliability of the weapon, it's probability of pre-launch survival, its ability to penetrate enemy defenses, and many other factors. A simplified version of this formula can be found in Managing Nuclear Operations, Page 380
>It is: DE=PK*PTP*PLS*PRE
>Where DE is Damage Expectancy
>PK is Probability of killing the target (given >CEP, yield, HOB, target hardness)
>PTP is the probability of penetrating defenses
>PLS is Prelaunch survivability.
>PRE is Probability of reliable function
>>29588727
what about watson? he's pretty good at jeopardy
>>29588836
It should
>>29588865
>America and Russia finally win but the jews escape to space becoming space jews
>we'll be back goyim
>>29588889
>So lets look at a typical Russian counterforce weapons the SS-18 with its 800Kt warhead.
>Pk is 1 because it will destroy the target.
>PTP is .9 because it is possible that US ABM defenses get a kill
>PLS is 1 because this is a first strike
>PRE is .8 based on what we know of Russian rockets. They are pretty reliable.
>This gives us a DE of .72, far below the .9 we need to provide. So we add another warhead. The upshot of all this is that those 450 silos will each need between 2 and 3 warheads (depending on the system) giving us between 900 and 1350 warheads needed. Lets split it, and say we need 2.5 warheads per silo to reach out goal. 1,125 warheads. Leaving the Russians with 375 in reserve. Should be plenty, right? Well, lets see...
>>29587510
We have some, it won't really make a huge difference. Just take comfort in EVERY enemy of America being bathed in nuclear fire too.
>>29588905
>On page 136, MNO gives us a timeline of how long it takes for the NCA to make a decision and for the decision to be carried out. It shows that the US ICBMs will be launching right as the Russian warheads arrive. Does this mean that retaliation is pointless?
>No.
>There are several factors that affect the arrival time of RV's. The primary concern is that of fratricide. MIRVs are limited to an area where all their warheads must land. This is called the footprint. The Footprint is different for each weapon but it is an oval and can be 100 km on its long side.It is likely that you will have several targets nearby in a given ICBMs footprint. If one warhead goes off on its target, it can damage or destroy the other nearby warheads. Even if you wait, you have issues, because following RVs will have to pass through the turbulent hot air from previous explosions. RVs are at the mercy of physics. They are unpowered and guided only by the calculations of gravity and drag. Introducing the turbulent and unpredictable environment of a mushroom cloud will have negative consequences for your accuracy.
>>29588865
>tfw It's highly unlikely due to the US and Russia's opposing political interests
>tfw Armenia, Russia and the US won't be removing Turk, Azeris, Kebab and Ching chongs in Asia with Kalash/AR hybrid laser weapons
Make me believe Anon
>>29588887
try and stop me, I've got orbital nukes
>>29588802
>.223 at a 45-70 mid flight to stop it
Let's scale it down. lgm-118 is 2.3 meters wide, the bullet is 11.6mm. So you have a scaling factor of 198x.
Assuming you caugth the missile as it took off from russia and JUST entered upper atmosphere, your "45-70" is 7000km away. Scaled down to your model... You're hitting a bullet head-on >>20 miles away.
Good luck.
>>29588913
Lower accuracy means lower Pk, which means we are adding even MORE warheads. Those 375 reserve warheads are dropping like sentry gun ammo on LV-426.
>Back to timing.So we now know that the warheads can not arrive all at the same time, making it extremely likely that a significant portion (perhaps as much as 50%) of the US ICBM force has survived and is now on its way to Russia. So now lets pause and look at the situation.
>So now lets pause and look at the situation. The 200 or so remaining Russian nuclear forces are on submarines and cruise missile aircraft.
The US has about 110 (25% of US ICBMs escaped. Lets give the Russians a break here) warheads on their way to Russia. They will be targeted at Russian command and control systems. The reason that this response is picked is because the best option for the US was to cut the Command and Control links between their subs and the Russian leadership.
The US retains about 128 ready SLBMs (the rest are in port and will require between 2 hours and 7 days to make ready) with about 500 warheads.
>In the scenario, the Russian leader now calls the US and asks for surrender? Why? Actually, no, he doesn't.
>>29588727
>No such computer exists
What the actual fuck are you talking about?
you realize we have landed shit on a fucking asteroid right?
>>29588924
>The US attack option would also order the deployed US SSBNs to fire a large number of their missiles at command and control targets. The SLBMs can use a technique called depressed trajectory to decrease flight time at the expense of range and accuracy. Since the targets in this case will not be silos, the accuracy loss is not a major concern. The other advantage is the short flight time of these weapons. The Russians will have about 3 minutes from detection to the first detonations on top of their command centers.
>It is unlikely the Russian leadership will even have a chance to pick up the phone to ask the US president for surrender, before his communications are disrupted. If he is not killed.
>In short, the idea that the Russians could execute a first strike that would be effective in crippling the US nuclear forces and forcing a surrender is not grounded in reality.
>Even if we assume that the US does not deploy its SLBMs, the US is still in possession of a major warhead advantage, an intact command and control network, and the ability to launch a DT attack using those SLBMs that the Russians would have little time to react to.
>The Russian situation is dire. Their surviving nuclear weapons are in submarines that patrol in protected bastions hear their coasts and are unable to deliver DT type attacks. Their command and control systems have been disrupted by the surviving US ICBMs, and they have not accounted for NATO at all.
>At this point, the Russians would be better off calling the US to surrender, rather than to demand it themselves.
>>29588796
Would you think the Russians would find this as destabilizing in the balance of power?
The enemy would see you brandishing a shiny new shield, and think, "now they can attack with impunity. We might as well take em out now, before it becomes impenetrable. "
>>29587649
Yep. The stuff used to protect from reentry are not very good armor to protect from directed energy weapons, and a well focused HEL beam generates far, far more heat then 6200 Fahrenheit.
>>29587670
It's not quite that theoretical. There's a reason that Russia takes anti-balistic missile systems seriously, and why the US really likes depressed trajectory launches.
Part of the problem is what OP noted: The pax atomica's been keeping us out of world wars for 70 years and nobody knows what to do when it ends. Even more fucked up is the possibility of one side getting anti-ballistic missile systems that are truly effective and reliable then mercilessly exploiting the advantage to win an atomic war.
>>29588928
Over the course of years of planning.
In this case, this mission would need to be done several thousand times, simultaneously, in 10-30minutes. Assuming there are enough defenses stockpiled, with sufficient range.
>>29588928
An orbital rendezvous is an entirely different problem.
>>29588938
as soon as a missile was launched, wouldn't france, the uk, germany, etc pick up on it and start launching?
also, what about the enduring stockpile? how long would that take to get shit like our B61 nukes online and deployed?
I know you're copypastaing oppenheimer here but this is just a general question
>>29588938
"oops, we missed one silo. It's firing it's sixth icbm. Closest vessel can hit it in six minutes. By that time, it will kill 2/3rds of US population"
-is why people smarter than you haven't initiated preemptive strike already
>>29588989
>one silo
>sixth icbm
are you pretending to be this stupid or is it legitimate?
>>29588916
We only have opposing interests because of our shitty administration. Once we make America great again we will have an alliance with Russia.
>Chinese Type 81s with futuristic 30mm laser cannons mounted under the barrels, with duplex self-guiding ammunition and a autotargeting Holo-Scope
>Russians use AN94's with integrated HUD into their helmets, designating targets automatically, and firing self guided explosive ammunition.
>Americans using new M8 carbines with undermounted plasma-thrower, and dual holographic and laser-targeting scope.
>Power armor becomes a thing with integrated cybernetic enhancements. Tanks become quadraped walking artillery.
>Nuclear weapons and MAD become obsolete due to ground based anti-ICBM Turbolasers. Conventional wars break out around the world.
>>29588952
>tfw nukes are the reasons why we haven't gotten a world war in our lifetime
Sucks in a sense that my generation will remain as limped dicked cucks falling for the socialism and communism meme
>>29589001
He's being dumb.
Russia at this point can't reliably launch anymore because all its ready reserves are either in flight or destroyed.
>>29589014
Don't you worry, we will all fight in the Second American Civil War soon enough.
Nationalists and libertarian-oriented patriots vs. Marxist Authoritarians
>>29589018
plus they can't launch without a go code/message, and if your C&C/president/other nuclear staff is glassed, you are now a dud.
>>29589001
You think a missile silo is just one pipe, one rocket and one dude with a big red button?
>>29588958
its not years of math though you stupid fuck
>>29588962
The point is we obviously have computers capable of doing these calculations Your fucking phone could.
>>29589010
>All these sexually arousing war tech
FUND IT
>>29589032
That is not true friendo.
It is extremely redundant system
If all top brass gets glassed there are contingency plans
>>29589041
>There are contingency plans
Oh boy...
>>29589034
one silo is one missile. you mean a launch complex, which has multiple at its disposal, and is very hardened.
also that image is false, the missiles aren't that close together at all, that would defeat the purpose.
>>29589041
how are you gonna know to use those plans if everyone who can authorize them is one of or a combo of these;
>cutoff from outside world
>no comms
>dead
>>29589037
Call me more names, chairborne faggot. If it's that easy, why does the Iron Dome EVER miss things moving 1/50th the velocity of an ICBM?
Shouldn't your fucking phone do better?
>>29589067
>because there are systems in place that would let you immediately know if SHTF and everyone was incinerated on the surface
Like I said extremely redundant. The chances of every official being glassed is nul.
>>29589067
>how are you gonna know to use those plans if everyone who can authorize them is one of or a combo of these;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-deadly
>>29589072
>outdated tech
>not as good as current tech
GEE I WONDER
Can you be any more retarded.
>>29588885
Because what starts small can grow. Even if it remained small, if it was enough to knock out, or even blunt a first strike it would give western nations a chance to stile back and obliterate Russia before they could launch a second wave.
>>29589089
>hundreds of millions of shekels Oboyma is feeding Judea is outdated
>Can you be any more retarded.
I could never beat you
Most boring job I have ever had. It was exciting for a month then I would mentally count down the days till I was finished.
>>29589101
... Right so how would it stop those ICBM's?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWZXinRwCaE&nohtml5=False
Interesting video
>>29589110
what did you guys even do?
jack off and watch panel lights?
honestly the only job I would join the AF for is missile maintenance.
oh, if you have stories, do tell.
>>29589110
How safe would you feel knowing that an actual nuclear exchange occured
>>29589115
Large missiles take time to build up speed.
>>29588355
>You all forget in a nuclear war everything will be launched or nothing will be launched
no
>>29589124
:) ok so we can take out Russian ICBM's somewhat more easy then other retards in this thread think.
>>29589121
I would wear a snuggie while sitting the apocalypse console waiting for the day that will never come, reading comics and yes jerking off because it is boring as fuck.
We did occasional simulated launches / scenarios and those were exciting.
>>29589123
Not safe at all considering that my job is to be alive long enough to launch my missile and then me and my partner can jerk eachother off till we get hit ourselves.
>>29589162
Provided you catch them
a) all
b) with defenses close by, and Russia's a big place
c) before they get up to speed
When they hit upper atmosphere, only another space craft can hit them.
>>29589163
so is it still a console like a titan 2, with lights and alarms and shit, or is it just kind of a screen with numbers and a "oh shit launch now" display?
the scenarios seem neat, what did they entail?
sounds interesting, i'd kinda like to get into it but it sounds like it fucking sucks
>>29589194
Its a combination of an old stereotypical console and buttons and knobs and alarms with the analog screens with brand new full color monitors and displays.
We did it in a purpose built simulator,
Slightly differing scenarios all involving an order to launch at whatever the target is, all in code.
We manually decoded it using a bound binder. Then we would go through the motions of verifying, verifying again, checking to make sure of the destination, checking it again, making sure all systems were good to go.
Then we would unlock our boxes and get our keys and turn them at the same time and launch the simulated ICBM at the simulated target.
Then we would do it with a different scenario where you run into an issue, something isnt right, there is a fuckup with whatever system.
In reality the system is super redundant so you would never encounter a glitch or issue but we trained for every possibility.
It does suck dont do it.
>>29589293
so it's just;
>stare at screen
>stare at screen
>hey the security radar alarm went off
>call up base get someone out there
>okay reset the alarm
>stare at screen
>fuck, 6 more hours of this?
so your interaction is
>beepbeepbeependtheworldbeep
>decode
>enter some shit into a few boxes
>unlock and turn
>wait to get glassed
>>29589190
Oh lord, do you think we don't have a anti ballistic missile system in space in geosynchronous orbit above the Arctic or the Pacific?
>>29589346
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
"we" don't
Violating this treaty makes China re-enter the space race under arms
>>29589377
>tfw no space shuttle that can launch a minuteman
why live
>>29588481
>We won't be seeing the real OPenheimer again anytime soon.
Thats a shame.
>>29587510
The US could intercept a dozen or so targets with current systems and their deployment.
The reason the Russians dont like them is because the systems change the math when you are building your attack options. A target will have a goal for Probability of kill that you have to hit.
When you factor in variables like reliability, accuracy, and then the probability of the penetration of defenses.
Even nudging those numbers a little may mean that instead of needing two warheads to hit your Pk goal, maybe you need three.
For every extra warhead you add, you take it from somewhere else. So you can reduce the number of targets the other guy can hit.
>>29589334
Exactly. This is most days:
Oh a bird/small mammal/protestors/hiker just landed or came too close and alarms are going off, now we have to call and get a patrol to check on us.
>>29588482
Yes, it is. If you target cities, you aren't targeting military forces. If you aren't targeting those forces, then they'll destroy the rest of your military. Then the survivors will stroll into your country, and take your mothers and sisters as concubines to make anal gape porn.
You can hold cities hostage in some circumstances, but cities are not the primary targets for obvious reasons.
>>29589396
Silly man. Shuttles full of rotary launchers for mid course ABMs is exactly the kind of ace in the hole that the USAF could hide underground for decades till needed.
>>29589163
So your position underground isn't capable of protecting you guys from being directly hit?
>>29589464
>Russia/US tensions reach an all time high
>US launches these super secret spacerapists in anticipation of Russian attack
>Russia: "Hey, whats up with all those launches y'all just did that weren't publicly announced, that we can't seem to find any info about in your news?"
>US: "n-nothing...."
>>29589499
it's not surviving the hit, it's getting out alive that's the problem
>>29589499
No a direct hit would have killed us.
>>29589515
We wouldnt be getting out alive I would assume. If there was a total nuclear war.
>>29588529
Unlikely.
The Russians have 1600 warheads. (Give or take).
The US has 500 silos. Each silo will need between two or three warheads per. They still have lots of other command and control, airbases, and naval facilities.
>>29589507
Nigga you launch when they launch with stacks strong enough for a quick leap to orbit. Then you open the bays, move on an intercept course, and wait for the targets to come in.
>>29589515
Shiiiiieeeeeeeet. In case your partner mentally breaks down under pressure and refuses ro turn the key, what's the protocol?
>>29589515
>haha time for cannibalism
>>29589549
That wasnt me you were responding to
this is me >>29589535
There would be literally no chance of that happening in reality. But you need two people.
>>29589549
I'm not MCCC anon, ask >>29589535
technically they have to turn the key but I assume anyone else in the LCC could do it.
also the other LCCs have control over the missiles as well, they can launch them too
>>29587510
did the apocalypse call?
>>29588889
>look up Managing Nuclear Operations
>Authored by Ashton Carter
>Like...Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter
>Hmm, I wonder what else he's written.
>Like three books on ABM defense
Since he has more than a passing interest in ABM Defense, I wonder how much he has altered our ABM policies and capabilities.
>>29589586
whops bad pic
>>29589549
If the rest of the LCCs turn their keys, then it wont matter because the missiles will fire without turning the key.
Or they can launch the missile remotely using the Airborne Launch Control System on the E-6.
>>29589561
>deliberately ingesting more ionizing radiation
This is a good idea...
>>29589618
>Airborne Launch Control System
the what?
there's a super-LCC on a plane somewhere?
>>29589631
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Launch_Control_System
>>29589631
It's called Skynet
>>29589643
So whats the point of missile crew down in the silos at all? Couldnt you just have people in whatever the LCC is trigger them all
>>29589631
It's Skyking time!
>>29589010
>America allying with a communist state that likes to kick the shit out of it's smaller neighbors
Not in a million years, even Trump knows Russia is fucking evil.
>>29589664
Redundancy, I assume.
>>29589618
So who commands the ALCS? Can it become totally independent of normal C&C in the case of a beheading strike, or does it still require authorization from whoever's left in charge on the ground?
>>29589750
>he thinks Murca Murca never bullied smaller countries out of greed and pettiness
>>29589809
Is America bullying smaller countries in Europe?
>>29589809
Oh, sure we have. Just not our geographical neighbors, at least not in this century. We let the clay of others be, when our politicians aren't being squabbling schizoid egomaniacs. And even then, we occupy instead of subsume.
>>29588444
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense
Nice meme, fuckwad. It's not exactly a fucking secret.
Note that these were slated to receive miniaturized kill vehicles - seven interceptors per missile. Send a MIRV to kill a MIRV. Then Obama cancelled the funding, because he's a stupid cunt.
Guess what recently had funding restored? Yeah. Guess Russia wasn't as friendly as Obongo had hoped, eh?
We can, indeed, shoot down ICBMs. But our current infrastructure is nowhere near good enough for a full-out war. Not only do we need far more missiles and interceptors, but our radars and tracking aren't up to snuff. The sea-based X-Band radar failed miserably, and the COBRA DANE array doesn't have the scan resolution needed to really pick out warheads from decoys, exacerbating our current issue of low interceptor numbers.
As is, however, we could seriously blunt an attack from smaller state actors, and faggots with just one missile (lol, N. Korea,) are shit out of luck.
What's the point of modern nukes anyways? Wouldn't any country who used them nowadays automatically have the world against them? If any two major nations like the U.S. and Russia or China went to war with one and other would they really resort to Nukes from the very start?
>>29589836
Oh please anon, what about our cold war shenanigans in South America alone?
>not in this century
If you actually mean in the 21st century, it's only been 16 years and we've already gone balls deep into two wars on foreign soil, and have killer robots flying all over the middle east.
Dat empire game ridiculous.
>>29589809
That's not America, that's the bank. Two different things.
>>29589891
Yes, but you can't trust your enemies to mirror the sentiment. Strategy I built around deterrent. The amount of nations that could arguably desire nukes for the actual anihillation of enemies could be counted on hands and toes.
>>29589891
For the sake of earth wouldn't it be better if they signed something where no nukes were allowed and basically first to surrender losses? These are civilized countries not Muslime Islam barbarians.
>>29589902
Yeah, and we permanently claimed no lands. We're the world police, for better and worse. Everyone knows that by now. Keep putting together more words that sound pretty and do no work.
>>29589891
Point is MAD. Two nuclear superpowers simply won't go to war with one another (directly) for fear of escalating to that point.
That's why proxy wars exist.
>>29589836
America has TWO land neighbors. Russia has a gorillion. Most hate their past leadership that literally saved them from extermination.
>>29589961
100% agreed. Russia doesn't have mountains of money and two oceans to hide behind. Very mentally tough culture.
>>29587613
Radically different velocities.
>>29587649
>lasers that reach 6201°F
>>29589948
>Yeah, and we permanently claimed no lands.
And genghis khan spared people who surrendered. You're joking if you think america won't shit on people that break their deals. Like they did on Cuba, for half of a century.
![images[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4xcNlLs.jpg "images[1].jpg")
>>29589422
So, did you actually lose your clearance, or am I not remembering the tripcode right and you're just some fag with the name?
Also, reading an interesting book on the development of nuclear rockets. It doesn't cover the early air force's original intentions for the technology in great detail; mostly just how it relates to the space program and the politics surrounding it in Congress. All the science and numbers were rounded and dumbed down in the main text to make it readable for people like me, but the citations are extensive and the appendix has much more in-depth explanations for some of the tech that the main text glosses over.
Anyway, I'm wondering why they stuck with chemical propulsion for "modern" ICBMs/nukes. The sheer increase in potential payload alone seems worth going with nuclear thrust.
>>29588206
Exactly. ICBM are spray and pray. Most modern nukes are smart guided cruise missles. The ICBM strike will only be the second or third wave.
>>29589978
Sure thing, never said I thought that at all. We'll totally shit on anyone we think is fucking with us with zero hesitation. It's incredibly immoral, but as world policing goes you can't argue with the effectiveness.
>>29590002
>nuclear powered nuclear rockets
Now with 70000% more nuclear
>>29589948
I could say the same to you.
We police the world with an eye for our own best interests. That mostly means keeping things safe for international commerce and keeping foreign markets open (even if it means installing a brutal puppet regime that violates all of the values we supposedly hold dear at home).
I'm not even criticizing that fact, it's just the way empires work. As a global hegemony, USA is pretty alright.
>>29589947
Anytime any two Modern Nations go to war with each other they will round up 1000 of their nations best fighters and give the sword and shield type equipment and have them battle it out on a large island and last team standing wins the war. They will be free to have Their own strategy and non lethal electronics and equipments their nation is able to provide. This is all televised and the money used from the world audience to view the battle is used to pay the winning nation. All soldiers are paid extremely well and are basically Heroes in their own nations. This is the future of warfare.
>>29590007
> Most modern nukes are smart guided cruise missles
That's not even close to true.
![hqdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/90O8Zhx.jpg "hqdefault[1].jpg")
>>29590047
>Not Gundam
>>29590008
Yeah, and by extension, what Russia is doing is securing it's borders.
If Canada allowed North Korea to build an airfield in Niagara, some "rebels" would "find" a literal train load of weapons and "require" US help to be dealt with
NATO was created to shit on USSR. Warshaw Pact was created to protect against NATO. 9/10ths of Warshaw pact countries are in NATO now.
>>29590007
Sputnik is a hollowed out ICBM. The first spacecraft was a nuclear bomb. Modern MIRV's are very advanced space craft. A cruise missile is little more than a drone plane that steers itself to ram.
>>29589422
I'm not on /k/ enough to know exactly how much shit you know, so I wanted to ask - I've been researching US infrastructure for tracking small targets in orbit. You know anything about that? I've seen a lot of theorizing that Cobra Dane isn't up to snuff; with attached speculation that the new Space Fence is meant to address that. Haven't heard jack shit about SSPARS resolution, either. Or how the failed X-Band seagoing radar factors into all of this.
Is the bottleneck just interceptor numbers, or is it really in fire control?
>>29590035
I couldn't possibly disagree with such an unbiased statement. Nothe going to even try to pretend the USA is some kind of zen master, we're a warlike culture. Someone on this side of the world has to be.
>>29590077
Best not to mention that here annon. The tank fags will go ballistic.
>>29590084
Yes, agreed.
Except NATO was not created by subjecting the member states to centralized authoritarian US control. This is the only quarrel I have with Russia, the post-WWII land grabs. And as you say, they were both absolutely inevitable and are no longer relevant.
Former Warsaw Pact nations turning NATO is just a concequence of a darker time in Russian history.
>>29589891
To keep non nuclear countries from developing theirs.
>>29590021
It's still, in my limited view, the only propulsion method efficient and powerful enough to move anything heavier than 3000lb without the cost ballooning out of control. Which, if you want to accomplish more than landing a single rover on Mars, is absolutely necessary.
>>29590139
And I can not justify them either. Invading Poland was a war crime, and Stalin isn't as insulting as Hitler only because Hitler lost.
But people can't let grudges go. For example, some parts of Poland's army actually fought against the soviet union as they were pushing out the nazis towards Berlin, when they should have been allied. Bit of a catch-22. What are you supposed to do if you're trying to fuck up the Wehrmacht and some partizans are blowing up your rail lines because polska stronk?
Next step nucular bullets! Bullets made into modern caliber find that each have the power to blow a house up. It's time to get nuclear guys!
>>29590216
And so is born the most badass job ever known to man! The Nucular Sniper?
>>29590231
The nuclear sniper never misses his target!
>>29590216
if scaling worked right, and we could do that, a 20mm would be 1.5kt of nuclear power.
so something like a .50BMG would be like, 1.2kt
>M2s slinging nuclear death
Can we summon Oppenheimer if we concentrate hard enough?
![DE_Gallery_5_USArmy[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/UI52wNU.jpg "DE_Gallery_5_USArmy[1].jpg")
>>29587510
Advances in solid state lasers is likely to make nuke delivery much harder.
>We can launch nukes to other continents
>We can shoot missiles that shoot down nukes in orbit!
>We can deliver multiple nukes in the same rocket!
>We can track and shoot down heaps of nukes!
>We can deploy dozens of realistic decoys that you don't have enough missiles for!
Next step is to have lasers that simply fire at every decoy. With negligible cost per shot, instantaneous arrival on target and the ability to rapidly fire, it's hard to beat. A shield of free-electron lasers in particular could make for a very hard to defeat defense.
>>29591183
Something tells me a laser is worthless against something with enough ablative coating to survive a mach ten reentry
>>29590002
I want to know more about this.
Wait what? Someone doxxed OPpenheimer? for what fucking prupose?
>>29590002
>So, did you actually lose your clearance
No.
>Nuclear Rockets.
It had more to do with logistical issues. Maintainence issues and the like.
>>29590090
>You know anything about that
Probably as much as you do. My personal understanding is that you are largely correct.
>>29591198
Something (school basic physics course) tells me that lasers are absolutely worthless against anything bigger than a civilian UAV.
