See this thing? It's Aegis Ashore, which has just been deployed in Romania. It can shoot down Russian ICBMs in the atmosphere.
To give you an idea of how effective it is: Russia could fire one third of their land-based ICBMs in one salvo at Romania and it is possible although unlikely that Aegis bolstered with THAAD could shoot down every single one.
NATO is planning another site in Poland. Both of these together will neuter Russia's ability to destroy Europe, so they are likely to retarget the missiles towards the US, which will wipe out civilian life there almost completely, which would not be the case if their missiles were spread out.
Why are they doing this? Because the powers that be are planning to start a war and destroy the US and Russia if Trump wins the presidency.
>>74019905
>THAAD is a go
The rest of that is a far stretch OP, but could be possible. Tense times we're in
>>74019905
OP, the entire anti-ICBM system is being used to destroy enemy ICBM's for NATO and it's allies, which include the U.S.
The U.S. would not have that tech there if it's not to defend the mainland.
>>74019905
this stuff is awesome tell me more
>>74019905
Nothing new, cruisers have had this capability for quite a while. Russia is saber-rattling over something they knew was in play for years. They just don't want to/can't afford to step up the arms race.
>>74021980
Russia is vastly expanding her military capacity and has been for years. Some of the new generation stuff is easily comparible to the western counterparts.
>>74019905
just give us the nukes already
What about Hypersonic nuclear missiles?
>>74019905
Are you serious?
>>74019905
>It can shoot down Russian ICBMs
No it can't.
>>74022318
Maybe, but they don't have the economic power to maintain them longterm.
>>74022318
Sure, but to what end? It's better to make them play catch-up than have no defense at all.
>how dare NATO defend itself against fucking nukes.
Yes, it can
>>74019905
>It can shoot down Russian ICBMs in the atmosphere.
dream on...
if they wanted take out your sharia shithole they would do it
btw is vaseline halal mohammed?
are you alowed to use it when the bear comes to rape you?
>>74022791
>>how dare NATO defend itself against fucking nukes.
Hello CIA.
>>74019905
>It can shoot down Russian ICBMs
Nope.
Hitting an ICBM with an anti-ICBM has been likened to hitting a bullet with a bullet. Considering that the fastest bullets have a muzzle velocity of about 0.76 miles per second, one could argue that the Israeli Iron Dome system does hit a bullet with a bullet. Trying to hit an ICBM with a GMD-fired missile is an order of magnitude faster than that.
All available evidence, however, suggests that it’s extremely easy for the ICBM to launch countermeasures that would drastically reduce the chances of the anti-ICBM missile from effectively locking on target. IO9 has a rundown of the countermeasure options, and they aren’t pretty.
>>74019905
>and it is possible
No its not.
>Both of these together will neuter Russia's ability to destroy Europe
They still got SLBM
This is a fucking terrible shit idea because not only does it not work, it also makes the retards in power think they might actually win a full out nuclear exchange. It destroy the idea of MAD and when that is gone nuclear weapons are basically pointless, if you have to use them you have all ready failed.
>>74022446
You're a U.S/EU/NATO colony, not a ''partner'', get it through your thick skull.
Why anti-ICBM missile defense can’t work
The fundamental issue with any anti-ICBM missile system is that it’s going to cost orders of magnitude more money to develop an effective interception system than it does to throw more ICBMs at the target. One of the reasons Israel’s Iron Dome system works is because the insurgents it defends against can’t hurl thousands of missiles into Israeli airspace in a matter of minutes. Even so, it’s more of a psychological protective measure than an effective one.
>>74019905
>Both of these together will neuter Russia's ability to destroy Europe
considering the amount of warheads russia has, i sincerely doubt this.
>>74019905
I would be more concerned about iran than Russia.
Russians are at least semi rational and not a theocracy.
>>74019905
>and destroy the US and Russia
Fuck yeah, Europe reigns supreme again.
>>74023149
>austrian """""""""banter""""""""""
>>74019905
>It can shoot down Russian ICBMs in the atmosphere.
Until it actually happens I'd take that with a pinch of salt. Claims of being able to shoot down ICBM's are almost always overstated by companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin to get a piece of that sweet sweet military industrial complex money.
These things are built to make money for their shareholders and expand military influence near Russia's borders. They're not designed to shoot down hundreds of Russian ICBM's cos that's a scenario that's nearly certain never to happen.
>>74019905
The military will mutiny and the people will rise.
![missile-command-1000[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/TiaUAgQ.gif "missile-command-1000[1].gif")
>>74023266
Anti-ICBM weapons don't actually try to "hit" the oncoming warhead. That's practically impossible. What they do is predict where the missile will be and then detonate their own hugely messy payload in front of the flight path and pray you fuck it out of the sky when it collides with the blast.
>>74019905
>implying ICBMs would ever be used in a first-strike scenario vs second-strike after short-ranged ground-hugging submarine-launched warheads already took out all known defensive systems
>>74019905
>it can shoot down ICBM's
Nope.
>>74019905
>Aegis bolstered with THAAD
more like SM6 missiles, they can shoot down ballistic missiles too
>so they are likely to retarget the missiles towards the US, which will wipe out civilian life there almost completely
no, because if they want to hit the US with nukes - only in a first strike, and then they have to attack US missile silos and military bases.
the russian doesn't have enough missiles for that... and especially not enough for the cities, so, don't worry about that
>Why are they doing this?
so save europe from russian nuclear mid-range missiles and any kind of invasion by air (because these aegis ashore systems will annihilate literally anything that flys through the air in it's area)
>>74019905
>The USA has no missile defense systems
k
>>74023276
I am amazed at the amount of knowledge in threads like these
>>74023276
>Not only does it not work
It works enough for nuclear planning. If you HAVE to destroy a strategic target with an ICBM in a first strike situation so they can't counter-strike, and there's a 20% chance an intercept system is going to destroy your missile it is no longer acceptable to send one bomb at the target. You have to send enough that destruction of the target is absolutely assured.
The whole point of an intercept system is to cause any potential first strike to be more limited simply by strategic concerns in destroying the highest priority targets. Its a way to effectively reduce the size of your opponent's arsenal.
>>74019905
>thinking ICBMs would ever actually be used in any conflict ever
the 1960s and 70s called, they want their cold war mentality back.
seriously though, it's all about small, tactical nuclear strikes to take out defensive/offensive capabilities. no invading country wants to completely destroy the economic capability of the country their invading, let alone have to deal with long lasting nuclear fallout and cleanup.
why do you think nukes were used on nagasaki and hiroshima, instead of kyoto or tokyo? nowadays, they'd just be used on remote installations far away from civilian population centers.
>>74024077
>Claims of being able to shoot down ICBM'
It's mostly against mid and long range ballistic missiles, but can used against ICBM too, but not as effective
> They're not designed to shoot down hundreds of Russian ICBM's
that's exactly what they are designed for
>cos that's a scenario that's nearly certain never to happen.
full out nuclear war will happen only in that way
>>74024469
Both Patriot PAC3 and THAAD are kinetic, Hit To Kill weapon systems.
Don't know about the SM6 for Aegis as I am not a squids.
t. Former Air Defense Officer
>>74025303
i'm half-sure there's some super secret, last resort anti-nuke strategy that basically has fighter pilots kamikaze into the missiles if they were ever launched en masse at the u.s. thus, part of the reason why the u.s. wants airplanes that travel at ridiculous speeds, so the pilots can manually intercept warheads.
>>74019905
KGB is on your fucking ass romania
>>74026245
>Thinking ICBM and ICBM countermeasures are deployed to be used
That's not how it works Jamal. The purpose is geopolitical posturing. You take the unilateral first-strike possibility (unlikely as it is) off the table and all of a sudden the balance of power shifts dramatically. Never mind it's not likely to happen, if it can't happen, you negotiate from a position of greater power.
>>74023591
Iran doesn't have nuclear missiles though and their military is shit still using old tech, the West could easily destroy them
>>74019905
Is Mad THAAD real? Because I find it hard to believe Romania has somerhing the US does not.
You don't think the US has anti-ICBM equipment loaded onto subs in the North Pacific? C'mon now, as if the US came through 50 odd years of cold war and 20 years of tension with Russia completely unprepared for something like this.
If the man in Vladivostok so much as twitches in the direction of the big red button, the US will spread Russia's guts like a thin layer of butter across siberia.
>>74019905
>Source: My brown eye
>>74019905
>It can shoot down Russian ICBMs in the atmosphere.
>ICBMs leave the atmosphere
>>74026483
my cock is kinetic m8
>>74027295
After first going up through the atmosphere, and prior to coming down through... wait for it... the atmosphere.
>>74026483
That posture
>>74026974
what
missiles travel 5000+ miles an hour, especially when they do their atmospheric reentry jig
no fucking way an F22 or even an SR71 could hit one
>>74026245
But that's wrong. I suggest you look a bit into nuclear utilisation and target selection theory- along with the core principle of MAD. When a missile is headed your way, you cant tell if its nuclear or not or where it's going to land. Therefore planning always assumes the worst and you react as though any nuclear strike is countervalue not counterforce. Also, there is great danger in the line of thought of limited nuclear strikes-where the line runs. What is an acceptable level of enemy activity that justifies a nuke? If the enemy is willing to carry out tactical nuke attacks, is every cruise missile potentially nuclear?
As of now there sin't a single country which openly plans to initiate limited nuclear war- in this high-stakes game, it's allor nothing.
Also, Hiroshima was a valid target for bombing- an industrial city, it had hardly been bombed up to that point because it was on the safe list (the Americans wanted to save some cities for historic or other reasons). Nagasaki IIRC was bombed because Kure was under cloud cover and the crew of Bockscar were ordered not to drop unless the aimpoint was in plain sight. By that point in the war Tokyo had been 80% burned to the ground by firebombing and Kyoto was on the safe list.
>>74019905
Don't ICBM's go into low-orbital? How the fuck do you shoot those down?
>>74026974
No idiot, missiles launched from aircraft move far far far quicker than the fucking planes themselves. The real last ditch effort is the Genie.
>>74026974
That sounds like a great idea. Maybe if you go down to your local air force base and tell them you know all about their secret kamikaze plan, they might just recruit you straight into the project.
>>74027528
At which point the MIRVs have seperated, so instead of shooting down one missile you have to shoot down 5-10 warheads screened by countermeasures. Good luck.
>>74027549
yeah but we have fast planes like the ac-130 that can intercept
>>74027850
Low effort bait.
>>74019905
>implying russia can't just bomb you with a conventional nuke
pretty sure they don't need an ICBM when they can just fly a high altitude bomber and drop a couple nukes
>>74019905
See this thing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_Program
It was a huge waste of money just like your pic. The similarity is they both don't do shit.
>>74027528
>going up
>way inside russia outside range
>going down
>at 7km/s
>>74019905
>the same missiles with a 1/8 chance of hitting with a 8 missile salvo can stop the Russian icbms
Didn't know lockeed needed to shill outside of /k/.
>>74027939
>implying i couldnt turn this thing to the side and shoot the icbm out of the sky
>>74027549
of course you can intercept them . not in that childish way to go "kamikaze" but to fire (pic related) at them.
the point is to intercept them, not to catch up
you could also intercept a 500km/h fast car with a very very slow truck (2km/h) if you know the trajectory of the fast object and just move/throw the kinetic killer (slow object) into it ( and it's trajectory)
What's stopping some sort of power to hide a nuke in a car / truck and nuke some place
>>74027939
To do that they'd have to fly a bomber, penetrate NATO airspace, and not get intercepted or shot down before reaching their targets. If all that happens, all hell breaks loose with ICBMs so what's the point?
>>74028092
detonating a nuclear device is actually pretty difficult and requires a significant impact to start it off. Even then, its pretty hard to get the ball rolling without significant testing of firing mechanisms.
>>74028069
>you could also intercept a 500km/h fast car with a very very slow truck (2km/h) if you know the trajectory of the fast object and just move/throw the kinetic killer (slow object) into it ( and it's trajectory)
only if they don't change the trajectory...
oh wait they can do this.
>what are marvs
>>74028092
Take some of custom made truck,hide a nuclear bomb in it. ALLAHU AKBAR
>>74019905
>Why are they doing this?
You have to stand up to Russia or they'll bully you until you don't exist.
>>74028092
that they are time consuming, expensive, hard to make and hard/expensive to maintain.
Honestly it would be way easier to create nerve gas that is relatively easy to produce wouldn't surprise me if ISIS had it.
>>74027994
*min 7km/s
usually 12 km/s
max >15km/s
russians have nothing to stop a minuteman or a trident
their s-500 just scratches on the lowest re-entry speed
>>74028069
That's the ASAT. designed to shoot down satellites-practically immobile in space terms (well defined and unchanging orbit). As opposed to an ICBM the trajectory of which you don't know with certainty and can change after launching the interceptor. And once the warheads have seperated you have multiple targets, with countermeasures, all maneuverable. Not feasible.
>>74022551
Yes it can.
>>74028300
What about conventional explosive detonated nukes?
>>74019905
>shot down a ballistic missile
>the debris still hits you
>have to evacuate cities because full of radioactive materials
>>74028300
>impact
Not really. Remember that nukes are 1945 cutting edge. The problem is a lot less getting nuclear material to go BOOM, more making it not go boom until you want it to. Constructing a gun type device is fairly simple and straightforward, the problem is that they are extremely inefficient.
>>74028300
>requires a significant impact to start it off.
thats not how nuclear warhead works anymore, all newer ones are implosion device exclusive.
>>74019905
Reminds me of the Maginot Line. Fast commando attack overland from the Black Sea takes it out before the ICBMs are fired.
>>74028345
and neither have the US.
>>74028314
>marvs
meme
this shit barely works and if so, they are soooo slow that every anti ICBM missile will be able to catch up
americans try to produce a functional marvs which are too fast to be intercepted but failed so far to get them down in one piece
>>74028600
Even the first ones werent impact fuzed, even little boy had a airburst fuze so it would destroy a greater area.
>>74027043
Shieee János
>>74028689
MIRVs. They work and have been deployed on most missiles since the 70s.
>>74028069
Which is why modern ICBM don't travel in a straigh line o even aim to get the missile in line with th target, the MIRV being able to independently move about.
>>74028092
The difficulty of hiding the radiological signal. The amount necessary even for a small bomb produces noticiable amounts of radiation and reducing it requires a very good knowledge of the engineering of the explosive lenses.
>>74028332
That's kind of nonsense because you have been bullying Russia for decades and decided that instead of extending the hand of friendship when they were in complete collapse you would instead plunder it until nothing was left. You could have made Russia a friend, but instead proved your claim of attacking them because they were communist was a lie.
>>74022576
>muh Russia failing economy
this meme has been going for almost 30 years, yet Russia still climbs and remains strong.
>>74028689
>soooo slow
>2.8km/s
>>74028361
> Not feasible.
that's the reason why you have far far more of these missiles than the enemy has ICBM/warheads
they are only one of multiple layers of the defence
>>74028673
laser
railgun
.. will be nice
>>74019905
brah didnt you listen to zero in the mission briefing
the governments do this shit all the time
there was probably a scientist trying to wistleblow on something bigger
like metal gear big
>>74028897
>2,8km/s
that is slow as fuck for a reentry vehicle
>>74028922
>laser
>railgun
>calls marvs meme
>>74019905
>Russia could fire one third of their land-based ICBMs in one salvo at Romania and it is possible although unlikely that Aegis bolstered with THAAD could shoot down every single one.
Bahahaha! Yeah okey.
>>74024469
I remember buying that game on a low density floppy diskette for Windows 3.1 way back in mid 90's.
>keep reading the posts
>its clear it's either trolling or stupidity.
I'm out.
>>74022791
These systems are there to ensure if we ever decide to initiate a first strike Russia can't shoot back anon.
Which serves to force the Russians to be much more on edge in the cases of false alarms which can increase the likelihood of accidentally nuclear war
>>74028922
It's not feasible on cost terms. You need not only far more missiles than the enemy has warheads but also to launch them to altitude-you need a system which is always ready for action. This is far too expensive to work. Most ABM systems now are endo/exoatmospheric interceptors attempting to destroy before seperation occurs.
>/pol/ tries to pretend they know what they're talking about
>>74029262
Why has he got a beard?
>>74019905
That's cool and all, but I guarantee you Hillary had all the info, including a way to shut it down, on her email server.
>>74029123
Probably at least thin out the herd of ICBM's if they were on their way to the US.
>>74028850
Yeah it's gonna look like that when you restart from nothing
>>74028818
How many border guards actually have radiological detection equipment?
China Ships, or some other country ships shit load of cars to mexico, one of these cars has a built in nuclear warhead and cannot be seen visually. Car gets into U.S,
RIP city
>>74023591
The CIA mi6 and even the goddamn Israeli mossad all know that Iran isn't even pursuing nuclear weapons let alone in possession of them.
Stop repeating this tired "Iran is two months away from nukes for 30 years" propaganda
>>74029055
both work so far, marvs not really
>>74029047
>that is slow as fuck for a reentry vehicle
>that can change direction at will.
Yeah whatever, so which counter system can again defeat a missile traveling mach8+ and multiple of them?
>in4 muh railgun, muh laser
Its even more funnier you mention laser... a warhead that can resist retry, with temperatures of 1600°C+ suddenly is susceptible to a laser.
You make shit up on the go, if any of the 2 sides decides to launch any significant number of missiles in the hundred range nothing will protect you.
>This thread
>B-b-b-but THAAD and anti-nukes can't reliably hit ICBMS
Romania is;
A) Too close for ICBM strikes - it'd require SRBMs or MRBMS, which are plenty able to get downed
B) In range to hit ICBMs heading to other targets, in the pre-orbit burn.
>>74019905
>THE ONLY REASON YOU NEED SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS TO INVADE RUSSIA!
>THE ONLY REASON YOU NEED A GUN IS TO MURDER SOMEONE!
Mhmm.
>>74029361
All ports have very sensitive radiation sensors, sensitive enough to blare alarms when even a half full container of bananas comes in.
>>74028043
>the plane with a literal tank cannon strapped to it
>>74029462
>Mach 8+
>Manouvering worth a damn
pick uno, hombre
>>74019905
>US painting a target on your back for the russians
Poor romanos, I hope none of their ashes touch our soil when it happens.
>>74029475
Well what if its brought by land? from some other country that got through?
>>74029348
That's not a good thing.
Since the 60's, planning has always been to have enough weapons to destroy the enemy even if he strikes first- hence Mutually Assured Destruction. If you have a shield which can stop part of the enemys arsenal,i t increases your motive to strike first knowing you have better chances of surviving if you do. The enemy knows this and so will be nervous with a light finger on the trigger so you don't strike before he can launch.
Both sides understood this which lead to the now defunct ABM treaty.
>>74029348
See>>74029170
And what the juden here said
>>74029656
The way our government is using these tools isn't for a defensive manner anon
>>74029577
it's not gonna turn on a dime but it will still go on a nonballistic trajectory
>>74029495
Not a tank cannon, a light howitzer.
As long as Russia has submarines and nuke trucks in Siberia, you will always have to deal with their nuclear deterrent.
Never mind the fact that US ABM is most definitely a shit, since Russia still has the 1st and 2nd strike advantage.
>>74029215
>It's not feasible on cost terms
nigga, they don't shoot down some palli firecrackers but nuclear warheads
the cost of the missiles is piss small compared to the value of the objects you have to protect - these objects are worth several thousand missiles
>This is far too expensive to work
every aegis system on every destroyer, cruiser and land aegis are cheap as hell
>everything else
aye, agreed on that
>>74029774
Which is trivial for an ABM.
>>74019905
>>74019905
>start a war and destroy the US and Russia if Trump wins the presidency.
Dummest fucking thing I ever seen a brit write.
It's Hillary that has the problem with Russia. And it's Hillary who will win the presidency and will start the war.
>>74029427
>both work
>railgun expecte to be operational 2018
>only ship sized
>barely reaches 160km
>lasers
>shooting down mortar rounds and conventional missiles
>server limited range
>>74027805
whts the genie
>>74028043
What the fuck is that dude in the back doing? IS HE SLEEPING ON THE JOB?!
>>74029361
Millitary satellites
>>74029827
That's not the system you were proposing and I was talking about. AEGIS ships with SM-6 or whatever they're carrying now are there to destroy missiles before seperation, during the climb. Cost is a factor because you have a limited defense budget. The problem isn't just the cost of the missiles but the support needed.
>>74019905
Hail satan nwo will come
>>74029874
AIR-2 Genie
Nuclear bomb on an unguided rocket designed to shoot down Soviet bomber formations.
>>74029462
> mach8+
>manouver
we don't need a missile for that, the g-forces during the manoeuvres will take care of that vehicle
> laser... a warhead that can resist retry, with temperatures of 1600°C+
and? i just throw more and more energy (heat) on the warhead with that laser - the warhead will burst because it's already on it's max
these lasers don't work like an oven at your home which has some temperature limit
>You make shit up on the go
no, you lack behind
>Terrorists provided with advanced nuclear weaponry
>Hidden inside a Truck / Vehicle
>Driven by a nice Muslim man
>About to enter Germany, Man says radio-logical sensors are on full alert
>THATS RACIST!!!
>oh okay
>Muslim man proceeds to Berlin
>ALLAHU AKBAR.JPG
>>74029855
do you have anything else to contribute except shitposts? no? too bad
>>74030235
I have yet to hear of a laser that can track and destroy such fast moving objects at such range through the atmosphere. They have a hard enough time with softer slower targets at shorter range.
>>74030150
the cost is not the missile or the support, it's the city or the army base you could lose
>>74029653
Through Canada?
Even a fucking leaf isn't that shitty.
Through Mexico?
Now that's something, but I imagine the US intelligence community prides itself on figuring that out. Also something something radiological sensors that can deduce out of place radiation signals from large distances, it's a thing.
Besides, it's not worth the effort at the risk of throwing out a predictable future for the few countries that could even deal with the cost/tech to do it in the first place
>>74030430
Yes I'm familiar with the concept. The problem is you're using it to justify systems whose cost exceeds the national budget- and that is the greatest barrier to any military program.
>>74019905
Decided to input the SM-3 missile range over the rough location of systems in Europe.
As you can see, they have an operational range that can reach as far as the ural mountains. This effectively means that the Russian ICBM fleet has been neutered. This will grant the US the capability to make a nuclear strike without fear of the Russian retaliation whiping them out. Effectively a first strike capability.
This is why the US and Soviets signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty back in the day. And this is why the new Cold War started not in 2008 with the Georgians causing a stink to get the Russians to invade. No the new Cold War started in 2001. When the US unilaterally pulled out of the ABM Treaty.
And the US continues to say it isn't aimed at Russia. It's aimed at Iran.
Iran doesn't even have missiles that could reach beyond the Polish border. The permanent NATO bases and nuclear arsenal are safe.
Heck if Iran was the target, why isn't it installed in Turkey? They are at the best location to stop an Iranian missile attack.
Fuck Bush and fuck Obongo for putting us on the path of a new nuclear arms race.
>>74028043
They should build civilian versions of these, I'd buy one
>>74027147
they don't, it's an american installation
>>74030332
>do you have anything else to contribute except shitposts
>says the shitposter
so again what system you have to engage a missile at mach8 with changing trajectory.
i am still waiting.
>>74019905
>To give you an idea of how effective it is: Russia could fire one third of their land-based ICBMs in one salvo at Romania and it is possible although unlikely that Aegis bolstered with THAAD could shoot down every single one.
I could spray a machine gun in the air and it's possible although unlikely that I could shoot down every single one too.
>>74030603
That's bull. The range is best case scenario-intercept of a low flying non maneuvering aircraft. Against ballistic missiles the intercept envelope is much smaller. Also the Russians have ICBMs everywhere and can easily launch them from out of range.
>>74025165
Russia has the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world kraut cuck, they have more than enough to glass the entire US
>>74030719
Actually impossible. The bullets don't reach that far.
>>74022543
>gypsies
Might want to go see if your wallet is still there.
>>74030603
>thinking all of Russia's ICBM's are within the big glowy green circles
Russia's considered this shit ages ago, friend.
>>74030420
>laser that can track and destroy such fast moving objects
>laser
>not speed of light
it's a point and shoot system
>They have a hard enough time with softer slower targets at shorter range.
because we didn't build the big ones yet because of some silly hippies
>>74030597
so? what do you think these nuclear armed B-52 fleet cost they had 24/7 ready?
>>74030696
> mach8
>changing trajectory
reentering I assume?
physics
>>74029475
>it'd require SRBMs or MRBMS, which are plenty able to get downed
The thing is that in case of war the russians will sling hundreds of sweet soviet surplus SRBMs across the eastern borders, and the new shit they have. Easy to stop? Yes, but a significant amout will get through, which is really all they need.
>Mhmm.
If they tried to supress their second strike capability (which they don't) that would be significant. You should know better, the UK had huge problems with that when the soviets deployed the A35 ABM systems around moscow. That was the reason for the british chevaline project.
>>74029838
it's not. It's the same issue you have with normal AA rockets, they need to be able to pull orders of magnitude more g than the intended target. The angular velocitys get insanely high, which makes it ridiculously hard to hit any target with way higher velocity than that of your interceptor.
>>74029577
a Trident II is actually closer to Mach 12 upon re-entry. By the time you have it targeted, if you ever do, its on its target.
>>74030944
>reentering I assume?
>physics
still waiting what weapon system can engage it.
>>74023375
>The fundamental issue with any anti-ICBM missile system is that it’s going to cost orders of magnitude more money to develop an effective interception system than it does to throw more ICBMs at the target.
This is true if you intercept individual warheads. IE stations in the US. However, these missiles instead have the range and are stationed so that they intercept the enemy nuclear missile during the boost phase. At that point you need only one missile to take out multiple warheads safely. That is why the US has been so hard at work to get European countries to accept this shield. And the fucking idiots accept it.
This shield doesn't benefit Europe. It only benefits the US. And it turns the European countries into targets.
I don't like how the US bullies Russia so much.
>>74030603
put these green circles on this map
if you want to attack the US as Russia, you have to go over the north pole
these aegis ashore are only to protect europe
>>74030897
It could hit critical systems when the payloads are falling out of the atmosphere.
>>74031123
Russia is cuck
>>74031088
physics
reentering and moving at that speed in the atmosphere? impossible
want to manoeuvre? slow down
want to remain your speed? don't manoeuver
>>74030944
Tell me, what is your technical training?
>point and shoot
Point-get a large assembly to point at exactly where a small object is, and track it consistently. A much harder feat of engineering than you seem to realize.
Shoot- get a laser beam with the intensity needed to destroy the target, compensating for atmospheric absorbtion and lensing. While at the same time not running out of power and not melting your own equipment.
The big ones are like the small ones with the above problems magnified.
Fleets of B-52s are cheaper then fleets of ASAT interceptors you were proposing.
>>74031117
you know that russia is gigantic, right?
They can launch their ICBMs way outside the range of any anti ICBM missile system, so "catching" them in boost is meh at best, only for the shortest range systems.
>>74031123
Russia is into bdsm...
>>74031155
Nope. Airburst is still a thing and you'd be surprised how low 7.62 actually gets. The bombs go off higher than your bullets reach.
>it was stated countless times that we don't care about your shit-tier defence systems and the real reason for butthurt is that US can easily use this to cover medium rang nuclear missles
>this thread
>>74028544
Now that's critical thinking
>>74031593
Almost. Radiation from bomb parts is trivial compared to fallout from an explosion. Also, after an intercept practically none of the debris will fall on the inteded target. So it's more "dont use this field until we clean it up".
>>74031117
>However, these missiles instead have the range and are stationed so that they intercept the enemy nuclear missile during the boost phase.
Which right now is unlikely at best. The russian heavy ICBMs have the range and throw weight to take routes across south or north pole, making everything in eastern europe useless against them.
The russians are neither retarded nor bancrupt, and they value their second and first strike capability quite high. If the US ever deployed a system in eastern europe that could hit their ICBMs in the boost phase i guess they'd just blow up some nukes over estonia or whereever before/while launching their ICBMs. The ICBMs don't need fancy radar systems and whatnot to make it to their targets, the interceptors do.
>>74031256
they don't need to maneuver much. Shifting the center of mass of the reentry vehicles and thus inducing uneven drag is enough to pull a couple of g while not loosing significant amounts of speed. It makes it a bit harder to aim, but the interceptor needs to pull orders of magnitude harder because it's that much slower.
>>74031256
>impossible
>its impossible because I say so
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuverable_reentry_vehicle
> The Pershing II's RV weighed 1,400 lb (640 kg) and traveled at Mach 8. It was fitted with four control fins to perform a 25-G pull-up after reentering the atmosphere, then glided 30 nmi (35 mi; 56 km) to the target and pitched into a terminal dive.
thats 70s tech.
>inb4 b-but it looses all the speed
doesn't mean jack, when it evaded all the counter measures.
>>74031304
>Point-get a large assembly to point at exactly where a small object is, and track it consistently
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZrvAFRhQZc
this, bigger better more powerful
>While at the same time not running out of power and not melting your own equipment.
i guess they will cut the entire civil part of the energy net off the grid and push it all into the lasers in such a case - power will not be a problem
> and not melting your own equipment.
they only have to work for the time of an all-out nuclear attack which is no more than several seconds to just a few minutes
jets are a lot less cheaper than bombers
>>74031593
>>74031773
it's the fission products that really harm you. Contaminating your area with enriched uranium/plutonium sucks, but it won't kill you any time soon if you know that it's there and take the necessary precautions
>>74030799
>>74030936
>>74031126
>>74031337
>The missiles dont have to launch from within the circles or travel over the pole
First off. You can't just up and move underground missile silos willy nilly. Yes their mobile missile systems can be moved to new locations. But they make up but a small portion of their nuclear arsenal. The vast majority lie in underground silos, which can not be moved.
Secondly. The range of 2500 km makes them exo-atmospheric capable. IE they can intercept in space. And that is the entire idea here. To detect the launch of the Russian missile silos, which lie near Moscow. And to intercept them in space before warhead separation. As warhead interception is simply going to be too costly.
The Russians are already responding in multiple ways. One is the design of maneuvering ballistic missiles and warheads to make interception harder. Secondly it is the development of a superheavy class of ICBMs. These will have the range to be able to fly over the southern pole to reach the US rather than the North. While also carrying more warheads.
It would not surprise me if they are also working on an armoured warhead concept.
This is all a fucking huge as waste of money. As the status quo will be maintained no matter what. Even if it bankrupts the nations involved. Meanwhile we could just resign the the ABM treaty and we would maintain the status quo and not have to spend money or piss off nations.
But that is of course the goal here. It's not protecting the US or Europe. It's creating an enemy so that the US and Europe will be forced to spend on defence in exuberant amounts once more.
>>74031862
oh, you little silly cunt
>The Pershing II's RV weighed 1,400 lb (640 kg) and traveled at Mach 8.
yes, outside of our athmosphere or outer atmosphere
>It was fitted with four control fins to perform a 25-G pull-up after reentering the atmosphere
indeed and it will lose a lot of speed every time
if it could do (what you assume) that it can manouver during reentry with mach +8 and can pull some crazy maneuvers off... then... then we reached our peak in the 70's and aren't able to reproduce these results right now
>terminal dive
can still shoot it down there, what's the problem?
>when it evaded all the counter measures.
the more you move the more energy you lose -> less speed
and? then i will shoot 5 missiles at it, it will have to maneuver 5 times and will lose so much speed that it's a sitting duck
where is the problem?
Or do you think it maneuvers like some of these autistic mechs in your ugly wapanese animuus with mach +8 and doesn't lose any speed or energy while jumping around like a mad cat?
>>74030972
>Yes, but a significant amout will get through, which is really all they need.
Which then stretches the scenario so badly it deforms everything, because Russia isn't going to throw most of their arsenal at Romania. I mean, if they really want to create a glowspot, there are better targets.
And that's regardless of how few surplus SRBMs and MRBMs are actually operative (because realistically, mothballing materials isn't the same as keeping them nominally operative)
Regardless of how many warheads are dummies, the proportion of which will massively increase over time for material and systems deterioration.
There's just better ways of projecting and using force, like hybrid warfare as in South Ossetia and Ukraine. Nukes and warhead numbers are rapidly declining and becoming irrelevant to the overall geopolitical game, and missile shields are half contracting corruption and half politicking to thumb the nose.
>>74031337
Yeah, like Russia would be able to silo and launch all of their arsenal from a specific few existing places in their territory without anything happening to it.
>>74031875
You really don't get the difference in scale, do you?
"This but bigger" is really fucking complicated in engineering. Particularly as you went from tracking IR signatures of M3 missiles within visual range to destroying M8 reentry vehicles at absurd distances. This is a difference not only of scale but degree.
>Grid
A. You seem to be underestimating the power needed.
B. You're working on the assumption that the civvy power grid will be up, available, and capable of supplying the surge power you need for such a system. No way.
Designing high powered equipment so it doesnt self destruct is nowhere near as simple as you make it sound. A few seconds on a MW-class laser can and does damage the device itself.
Please go study engineering. You seem to have a good mind for it.
Keeping enough fighters around per enemy missile is more expensive than keeping the equivalent force in bombers and missiles.
>>74031950
Yes that's what I said :)
>>74032483
>lose a lot of speed
Mach 1 or Mach 10, if it's past the counter-measures that are designed to take down MIRVs during their penetration phase, it's going to fucking hit it's target.
>>74032401
>First off. You can't just up and move underground missile silos willy nilly
sub launched missiles are not a new concept
>>74032401
Many of their silos are out of range, so you don't need to move them. Secondly, the 2500km range is best case-against a low and slow aircraft. Against ballistic missiles the intercept envelope is MUCH smaller.
>>74032483
re-entry time from low orbit to ground impact is less than 20 seconds. You will not be able to do anything other than realize you are screwed.
>>74019905
Why would Russia engage in a war with it's main buyer of it's number one export.
Tin foil and happening fags are truly the worst.
>>74031123
The Jewish tool (read: NATO) is trying to tighten their stranglehold
but there is still one who can change this
Why is Russia mad that countries want protection from them?
Its not the world's fault that the Russian government is run by a bunch of butthurt exKGB officers.
Also, if Russia just allied with us, then this wouldn't be a problem.
But no. Russia wants to act like they are more special than they really are. Kek. Russia is absolute shit.
>>74032501
>at absurd distances
hell, why would you place them somewhere where is nothing to defend???
you build these things close to a city or an army base. the best would be close to a nuclear reactor or any power plant and build an extra separate power line to the laser.
now you have only to turn pretty much directly up and melt these fuckers out of the sky.
your mindset is so fixed on that home-made palli missile scenario
>You seem to be underestimating the power needed.
i just know that the amount of energy output of the US to satisfy their energy consumption it beyond reasonable
cut them (civilians) all off for these 5 minutes and throw everything on the laser - it will be more than enough
>You're working on the assumption that the civvy power grid will be up, available, and capable of supplying the surge power you need for such a system. No way.
see above - the amount of energy they consume is insane.
not every powerplant has to work @ a 100%, but severals on 50% and all giving their energy at a few high power laser will certainly be enough
they don't have to carry the main defence... lasers will be the last shield anyway - let us hope that the US shoot enough ICBM and warheads on their way to the US down so that they can kill the rest with laser
>>74022551
You're right.
It tracks up to many hundred of warheads throughout their entire journey and sends the information to multiple sources, turning every viable weapon into a potential interceptor. Its radar systems are what makes it special.
The missiles are state of the art and have proven to be effective too though.
>>74031123
>Believing in a quantifiably good and bad simplification
No country is your friend, not even your allies. Don't expect them to treat you as any more than a tool to advance themselves, or a rival to compete with.
>>74032637
>subs!
I know you don't get good schooling over there Dwyane, but reading isn't that hard.
The vast majority of missiles and nuclear warheads are ground based silo launched missiles. The same holds true for the US.
>>74033395
Nice flag
>>74032938
systems are ready in that case
the US has ~30min to ~20min from the start of the ICBM to the impact of the warhead - enough time to prepare anything for the worst
and if you hit them only 5 seconds before impact - it didn't hit the city, people didn't died, buildings didn't turn to ash, it's a win
>>74019905
Lol yea we put these in Europe but not our own backyard. Retarded Achmeds in London spewing shit as usual to get ppl not to vote Trump.
>>74033395
> I know you don't get good schooling
Dude. Your country is so irrelevant I don't even think it's registered on the international education scales.
Why not strap a nuke to a refugee and have them walk to the target?
>>74033596
> she's not asking for it! Stop oppressing her right to be passed out drunk on a street with her panties the only thing in her lower half.
>>74033596
lol
fill that drunk bitch with semen
>>74033395
how many sub patrols have YOU done? I know I've done more than you.
>>74033675
And I would let your dirty Turkish sand nigger self do it too because that bitch is retarded.
>>74033512
you'd have about as much luck at hitting a bolt of lightning with a slingshot
>>74033473
>Nice flag
You are jealous aren't you leaf?
>>74033749
>making claims on the internet without backing it up.
>>74022551
This turbonigger is right
>>74019905
MIRV are one of the most fucking scary shit invented by men, the system deploy decoys and chaff to fuck up with the radar, ABM ordenance would be wasted on what's called decoy warheads (which cost pennies), the truth is nothing short of relatiation with MIRVs is propaganda so the sheep (like you it seem) can have a nice night of sleep.
>>74033902
>>making claims on the internet without backing it up.
you called me Dwayne.. back that up? stop being dumb
>>74019905
>Romania relevant enough for even 3 nukes
c'mon anon at least make it believable. Also if Russia fires off even one nuke what makes you think all of Aegis intercepts will be clean hits? firing, hitting and not detonating a missile coming in at 10x the speed of sound is no easy feat.
>>74033264
No. Again you've missed the point.
The absurd distances are altitude of interception, and the slant needed as the warheads don't come straight down.
That is where the range comes into consideration, and what with most of that being through air, it makes things damn near impossible.
>mind fixed
Not quite. For short range C-RAM lasers are finally becoming effective. For long range missile defense they are nowhere near ready.
To redirect all power to a laser battery would imply thst you have a grid capable of sustaining such power flow to a single point, and that your power stations are still around-a very dangerous assumption to make.
And even assuming you do-you need to provide power to every laser battery you have, and their associated tracking equipment. Missiles like the Hetz are the cheaper more effective and more reliable solution and will be until laser tech matures.
>turn directly up
No. These things come in at a rather complicated trajectory even when not maneuvering and its hard enough to point directly at where they are even for a moment, let alone track them for long enough for a laser to have a measurable effect.
You seem to think intercepting M8 projectiles is simple. It really, really isn't.
>>74033661
>>74033675
I googled the picture and she is actually dead.
She was a russian college student and fell to her death.
http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/russian-college-student-falls-her-death-151594/
>>74033992
Why are you arguing with the most irrelevant nation on the planet.
Ignore him. His country doesn't matter nor do his opinions.
>>74033395
these silos are more for the strategic purpose (they serve as bait)
assuming the russians want to strike first - but don't want to get turned into ash in return, then they have to kill all US nukes first.
missile silos are like bait - you make sure that you have so many silos that your enemy will waste the vast majority of is nukes on them and has barely any left to hit the actual (and important) things like army bases, naval ports and others.
Plus, that the amount of warheads for these bases will be so small, that you can intercept them.
Nuclear warfare is gambling, that's the reason why no one wants do to it but still likes to brag about it
tl:dr
if you don't kill all silos, they will kill you
but! if you kill all silos, you don't have anything nukes left for the rest
>>74034079
> Be Russian college girl
> drink too much vodka and fall off balcony to your death
And nothing of value was lost.
>>74031814
>The russian heavy ICBMs have the range and throw weight to take routes across south or north pole
This is a good question, can't long range missiles be relocated to circunvent these anti ICBM locations?
>>74027043
Romania sided with USA after revolution - we're 100% loyal to them, they offered us freedom and gave us free hand to do w/e.
Also we developed some of the best intelligence services in Europe.
There are at least 6 here that I can think of.
>>74034079
again, fill her with semen
pretty sure that she is still warm
haha
>>74026483
Is that pic from osan?
>>74023591
Fuck off JIDF
>>74033395
>The vast majority of missiles and nuclear warheads are ground based silo launched missiles.
Not really, and somehow I think the Russians had the foresight to not clump them all up in western Russia.
>>74033214
Why is America mad that countries want protection from them?
MAD ensures world peace, why does NATO constantly try to destroy concept of MAD by surrounding Russia with military bases and shouting to the entire world how their new anti-nuke emplacement is right there, next to Moscow?
>>74030225
yeah that'll work real well against other fucking missiles
>>74034415
Russia has like no allies and the allies you do have are North Korea and Iran. Two fucking nut job countries.
The whole civilized world is on our team. Just you stupid niggers trying to act tough and look what happened last time you tried that. The fucking USSR collapsed.
Enjoy your shit tier life Ivan.
let me get this straight, as soon as we can shoot down nukes we're back to conventional war?
>>74034266
That's what ships are for in the Aegis defense network.
>>74034415
Guns ensure civility and peace, why does a citizen constantly try to destroy the concept of armed peace by wearing armor?!
>>74034435
Hey not my idea
Some other guy mentioned it
I just explained what it is
Though a similar idea worked for the Russians
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-35_anti-ballistic_missile_system
>>74034266
sure they can. The point is they currently aren't (at least for the south pole route). US missile defense is concentrated in alaska, the west coast and europe, and soon probably eastern europe. Well, at least as far as we know.
The problem is decades old: ABM systems are orders of magnitude more expensive than just slinging ICBMs with MIRVs into your enemys direction, that's the reason they had the ABM threaty. All this "hit them while they are launched" is something both countries will be able to prevent at least for the forseeable future.
>>74034545
Worse
We're at "shoot first=win"
>>74034516
oh just fuck off with your nigger president and faggot marriage
I'm sick of it
>>74034641
what if both sides have defences schlomo?
>>74022840
no it can't
1 ninja could take the whole place out.
Stupid.
>>74019905
Kek. You really think those sites are there to protect Europe?
>Delusional.
Those sites are there to give the US time to intercept. You really think the powers that be in the US give a fuck about anywhere in Europe?
>>74034516
china? India? Probably not in the same power bloc as russia and allies, but definetly closer to them than to the US.
>>74019905
>implying Aegis actually works
>implying a simple Khibiny run from some shitty Tupolevs won't take it out before Russia launches, just for fun.
>>74019905
>Why are they doing this? Because the powers that be are planning to start a war and destroy the US and Russia if Trump wins the presidency
Things that never happened: the post. Trump wont do anything to destroy Europe because you idiots are already doing it to yourselves.
>>74028758
Yo Radu shieeeeeeeeee
>>74034757
You need to get yourself some reading comprehension.
>>74034720
> China and India
>civilized
Wew I'm laughin
>>74034642
Okay Mr. Muslim mayor of London
>>74034806
What is your definition of civilized? Is it civilized to destroy and replace the dominant ethnic group in your own nation?
>>74034806
no matter what you think of them, both are not insignificant.
>>74019905
Actually SM-3s are designed to destroy missiles outside of the atmosphere. The targeting vehicles don't work at lower altitudes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC97wdQOmfI
>>74034545
>pic related
>>74019905
Dark Blue: NATO
Mid Blue: US Major non-NATO Allies
Light Blue: Partnership for Peace (symbolic)
Anyway, the West has absolute military hegemony over Russia. What's the need for this system?
>>74034689
Assuming that once one side got defenses they waited for the other to get them and hell didn't break out there:
You have nothing to lose by trying. Who knows, maybe the enemy's system isn't that good. Want to try?
The more realistic answer is economic warfare-if the enemy can no longer support the defenses needed to counter your missiles you've won. See the end of the 1st cold war for more details.
>>74034571
If you think dank memes is a legitimate argument against the entire history of cold war, maybe you should reconsider your life.
>>74034516
That doesn't answer my question, why does USA have an itch in their butt to surround Russia with military bases and anti-MAD devices? The only questionable thing Russian Federation did since it's inception in 1990s was take Crimea, but the bases and stuff were there way before that, so USA has literally zero excuses.
Does America secretly want world wide nuclear holocaust? That'll actually happen if they'll keep trying to defeat the MAD concept.
>>74034852
I don't support this country at all, I don't give a shit
you're just a dumb nigger warmongering faggot, are you sperging out at russia because they are higher test than you?
>>74034862
> what do you consider civilization
Um, the majority of the country not living like 3rd world peasants. Unfortunately for Russia, all their allies live like peasants.
70% of China is 3rd world and like 95% of India is 3rd world
>>74034939
If they can destroy MAD they can nuke Russia or go to war with it conventionally.
>>74019905
Second strike via submarines and or air bombardment. I'm sure would attack Europe via land with large armor divisions.
>>74035008
Because your neighbors don't like you, Ivan.
>>74035013
Haha, you sound mad as fuck.
It's hella funny.
>>74035014
>Um, the majority of the country not living like 3rd world peasants.
The majority of the United States will live like third world peasants within a hundred years. That is intentional government policy and has been for decades. Is that civilized?
![EPAA-JOan-op-ed-figure2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Xc6cVrp.jpg "EPAA-JOan-op-ed-figure2[1].jpg")
>>74034900
more modern video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBMU6l6GsdM
>>74034939
its against iran. an ICBM launch against iran towards the US or western europe would take it over romania (and poland if against the US or the UK). The US has larger systems in Alaska to defend against a NK launch against the US.
>>74024077
This. There were some practice exercises for anti-ICBM and they failed to take our nearly every test vehicle.
Additionally, they only work for ICBMs that take a static path. Russian ICBMs not only maneuver around to disable that, but they also carry a fuckton of decoys that make it practically impossible to take out the real payload.
>>74035014
the 30% is more than the US population
>>74035121
> SOMETHING BAD WILL HAPPEN TO YOUR COUNTRY IN A CENTURY SO WAAA
Wow. Great post Leafboy.
>>74035123
This was a perfect example of military complex industry waste. This was cancelled, I tought it was fucking cool but Lockheed terminated the project after going over budget for a long-ass time.
>>74035097
I am, I'm sick of retarded burgers who pick fights for no reason and join the military so they can die for israel
how about you fix your fucking country if you love it so much
>>74035014
>70% of China is 3rd world and like 95% of India is 3rd world
How does that matter? Both spend tons of many for their military. That they are filled with billions of peasants just makes it harder to fight them
>>74035123
Iran being the target is just a pretext. Like how they encircle China and pretend it is about North Korea.
>>74035209
Well, it's already happening. Again, it's policy, not an accident or a result of some flaw in the American people. This is what happens when you defend hostile elites.
>>74035073
>A bunch of slavs in commieblocks on the other side of the planet don't like their neighbour because he makes them pay for gas
>Welp, time for Nuclear War!
Stupid burger.
>>74035008
American power games and the fact that they've been out of it for so long that they forgot what makes it work. If they can break MAD in their favor they will, because it means they remain the one and only superpower.
DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN.
>>74035269
Cry some more Ahmed. Your tears are delicious.
>>74035008
Its not made to defend from russian missiles. we'd have to have hundreds and hundreds of them there and in alaska/canada to defend against russian missiles. we have a couple dozen in romania (and soon to be poland) to defend against iran (since obama is too beta to take them out). it'd be useless against a massive attack from russia.
>>74035215
Thats basically the warhead that SM-3s use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Exo-Atmospheric_Projectile
Theres a lot of waste in the military industrial complex, but that project wasn't one of them.
>>74035290
>>Welp, time for Nuclear War!
Why would you start one?
>>74023266
Confirmed for not knowing shit about ICBM defense.
Yes, at the speeds that ICBMs are travelling they're much harder to hit. HOWEVER, if you can compute that course quick enough, its much easier to get something in the way. You cant take evasive manuvers at that speed nearly as easily, just as you cant make hairpin turns going at highway speeds.
Similarly, the damage required to destroy something moving at hypersonic speeds is much lower than regular missiles. One tiny hole or disruption of the advanced aerodynamic shapes of the missile will cause it to break up extremely quickly. See the US space shuttle disaster. One missing/damaged heat panel and the whole thing crumbled apart.
So, figure out where, its going. Explode a huge cloud of debris right in front of it, and youve got good odds that you're going to fuck up SOMETHING important on it.
At least thats the basic theory anyways.
>>74035457
It was the United States that changed their official military policy to allow for "pre-emptive" nuclear strikes.
>>74035279
>>74035282
>>74035290
Kek. You mad bitches? What's funny is all you fags can do is cry on 4chan. Meanwhile, the real world is working differently. And even more amusing is that you cannot do JACK shit about it.
So goahead. Cry. Complain about the evil United States. We're winning and every day, more of Russia's former USSR pupets come to us begging for help.
It's great having the world suck our dick all while Russia cries like a fucking bitch.
Enjoy your sanctions.
>>74035296
>DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN
Fuck off kike.
Why is israel even allowed to post?
>>74035296
>>74035324
i look forward to killing you globalist cunts and raping your pathetic wimmin soldiers
you're exactly the kind of idiot who'd "die for his country" like that
>>74035534
I think you misunderstand. The people running your country don't give a fuck about it and shall inflict upon you the same misery they inflict everywhere else. The only reason they've somewhat held back so far is because they don't need a fully cucked USA before they get their world domination.
You are cheering for your own death.
