Absolutely! The US ABM shield is meant to intercept incoming ICBMs, which in terminal velocity will be in excess of Mach 20. The difficulty with speed isnt that the interceptor will “tear itself apart” it’s just that it means less margin for error when plotting your intercept course
I bet there are nuclear tipped interceptors too, though that wouldn't be public. Its a lot easier to destroy the incoming missile if your margin of error is a few miles versus a few meters. Not to mention it would blot out all the multiple re-entry vehicles. The public wouldn't want to know that's the plan but it would sure beat nukes detonating in cities.
I even remember reading about how the Soviets planned to chain detonate nukes over Moscow in the event of an exchange to destroy incoming ICMBs.
GMD is hit-to-kill. Though I should point out that it’s broadly useless.
GMD is only capable of taking out 10-20 missiles at once. Russia and China both have hundreds of missiles, and if the DPRK isn’t there yet they will be soon. GMD is essentially useless at preventing a first strike. It was ostensibly meant for if a rogue state managed to launch a handful of ICBMs at the US, a scenario that really isn’t likely. What it would be useful for, is if the US were to strike first and take out the majority of the enemy’s missiles on the ground. To be clear, I don’t think that is why the US built it, and that isn’t part of the strategic thinking. But that possibility is exactly what Russia and China suspect about GMD. Hence their expansion of new weapons.
Yeah exactly. Shooting hundreds of bullets with your bullets. And each bullet you need to shoot breaks into smaller bullets upon re-entry that start randomly maneuvering. Hit to kill is just not practical against a peer firing hundreds of ICBMs.
That's why I suspect the US never stopped developing nuclear tipped ABMs with the Sprint I and II programs. They just went dark. It's the only logical way to defend against the only existential threat we face, and DC is gonna be first struck so you can bet the political class is incentivized to develop this.
Why keep it secret? Well first it interferes with MAD which is very destabilizing. Also its good to hold your most important cards close to your chest. And there's the fact that the public would be uncomfortable with the idea that our plan to survive involves so much radiation being thrown around. A lot of incentive to not talk about it...
I don’t think that makes sense. Where are the vast stockpiles of missiles? The silos? The thousands of people who would need to be on ready alert to launch those missiles? This also would require the US to have been cheating on the START treaties and probably the ABM treaty when it was in effect as well.
Also, nuclear-tipped ABM systems aren’t some sort of super power. Remember that all of this is happening in space at very high speeds. The Nike Zeus had to get within a kilometer of the target warhead before detonating. It’s not like you could throw a couple of these up and knock hundreds of incoming warheads out of the sky.
Or is there another option now, with the necessary coverage? From space, via SAT?
Some sort of 'dent-detection' in the electromagnetic field instead, be it natural, or man-made?
Nuclear armed anti-balistic missiles have been made, but they're not in use as far as we know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_program Spartan missiles were set to be armed with 5 MT warheads!
AFAIK US doesn't have any ABM system that can intercept mach 20 ICBMs, let alone in terminal phase. The closest was FTM-44 in 2020 that hit an "ICBM representative" target midcourse in "highly favourable", i.e. not operational conditions. Which doesn't reveal speed of mock target, but IIRC there was testimony to subcommittee on strategic forces a couple years ago where director of missile defense stated US does not have systems to track "much less intercept" missiles going at mach20, suggesting limits of current capabilities. I would guess not much more than mach10, seeing how few Fattah 1s (mach10-15) were not intercepted in last round of ballistic attacks against Israel in October, where USS Bulkeley (which has ANSPY6V1 / aka highend AEGIS BMD) was trying to shoot them down with SM3s. Granted we don't know interception % of Bulkely, or how many they tried to intercept, but a lot of "high"end Iranian missiles (really medium tier) got through.
Combine this with facilities like these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_Program and have modular mini nuke breeders on site, powering atmospheric capture of CO² to turn them into synthetic fuels. Pharaonic Profits!1!!
Shooting down nukes with mini nukes during terminal interception, i.e. over your soil is probably only going to fly during cold war hysteria. Safeguard was about protecting nukes in silos before SSBNs added survivability to triad.
But this still has to get reliable ännärdshy from somewhere, so the possible synergy between modular mini nuke plants to power on site atmospheric capture of CO² to produce clean synfuels still applies!1!!
Or maybe we could have an HVTC (High Voltage Teslatronic Current) atmospheric supersmartgrid, made out of a network of these.
Ugh, I really hate that term. “Hypersonic” just means traveling faster than 5 times the speed of sound. We’ve had ballistic missiles capable of exceeding that speed since the 1950s. ICBMs are hypersonic. So, yes, GMD has been tested against hypersonic missiles.
The latest hype is around “hypersonic glide body” type weapons. Where instead of traveling a straight ballistic trajectory they have small control surfaces and are capable of maneuvering. Ironically, though, having to maneuver like that makes such missiles slower, not faster, than an equivalent ballistic missile. And their maneuverability isn’t exactly huge, because at those speeds even small turns will impose significant g forces. So there’s this weird tradeoff between speed and maneuverability.
Hm yes, but depending on course/great circle distance ballistic missiles have an apogaeum between 1200km to 4500km. While anything which is 'boosted back down there' during ascent reaches maybe 300km max height, then doing 'skip reentry' stuff and/or powered steering at 100km to 200km. Which is less distance to cover.
Ever since HN was taken over by LLMs you bump into these sort of arguments regularly. Indeed, it is pretty obvious how a real human would have interpreted and answered the question.
I actually don’t think that’s why Russia responded. The announcement about being able to us US missiles on Russian territory occurred too quickly for them to have launched this is response. I think this is Russias response to the opening of the Aegis Ashore ballistic missile shield in Poland, which has been in progress for years and just recently was made operational
It’s a missile that has been developed in secret, for years. With a conventional payload, so that it could actually be used in a demonstration strike like this. That was apparently completed just in time to be used here. Makes sense that it is a reaction to the Aegis Ashore base in Poland, since that has been under way for years, the completion date could be predicted and planned for well in advance, and is of grave concern to the Russian state. Putin himself has constantly expressed concern about those missile defense bases, he’s very concerned that they could secretly loaded with nuclear-tipped tomahawk missiles and used for a sudden first strike.
It’s a bit academic, of course, why Russia decided to reveal the existence of this missile now, and employ it in Ukraine. It’s not like there’s only one reason why Russia did this.
Bidens approval of the latest missiles has to be the most bone headed — nay, straight evil — actions committed by a US Chief of Staff since Bush. January can’t come soon enough. How many humans have died from this administration? Has it reached millions yet? Will it?
If they didn't, people would be talking about how their red lines are bluffs. The Russians are being given two options by the US - surrender or escalate. They aren't going to surrender. I'm not sure what people expect to happen but given the strategic madness out of the west we're probably doing well if we get all the way through this without London being targeted.
Whoever thought it was a good idea to try and turn Iraq 2 into WW3 really should be relieved of their power to make decisions. Russia was behaving well within international norms established by the US's actions until the west got involved in Ukraine. Now we've seen orders of magnitude more casualties for nothing, and the risk of nuclear war are off the hitherto plotted charts.
> we're probably doing well if we get all the way through this without London being targeted.
Putin might be stupid, but you think too lowly of him.
You attack population centers after mutually assured destruction. There is no reason to escalate by creating a humanitarian crisis if you're not already prepared to deal with the consequences (a-la Nagasaki/Hiroshima). The first attacks are tactical and therefore negligible in civilian damage and controversial to discuss. They will certainly be condemned globally, but no one smart enough to stockpile tactical nukes is going to use it somewhere with reprehensible civilian harm. It is both more valuable, smarter, and less costly to deploy it tactically against enemy installations or materiel.
If London is "targeted" then Russia is going to find out just how fucking bad Europe hates them. The nuclear dance is about riding the threshold of plausible escalation without revealing desperation and giving your enemies casus belli.
The Russians have figured out that the Europeans hate them, that is why we're all on day >1,000 of the current war and they're firming up relations with Asian powers in a way that is a net loss to the rest of us.
> You attack population centers after mutually assured destruction.
There have already been what are basically missiles targeting Moscow, any compunction about targeting Russia itself have been overcome and those storm shadows the other day were a pretty inflammatory gambit. It isn't there yet, but extrapolate forward 12 months and I think some sort of strike on the UK is on the cards. May as well be London. The British aren't going to stop until something stops them, if they don't see a red line at hitting Russia proper then they probably don't see any at all anywhere. And Russia has been pretty clear through their targeting in Ukraine that they are happy to go for civilian infrastructure.
Fingers crossed they run out of money or steam before the situation gets much worse, I suppose.
> British aren't going to stop until something stops them
Yup. That’s why London folded after Hitler’s blitz.
Putin is a weak man. His hold on power depends on this war. He’s smarter than this comment because he knows a strike on London of any kind would result in Europe arming Ukraine for a kill versus the current strategy of keeping a low summer.
The UK was pretty much overwhelmed by the blitz; and the war overall broke them as a world power and they were forced to rely on foreign support to keep them fighting. That was all locked in very early on. And they only have a fraction of the staying power that they did the 1940s now, they can't handle that sort of pressure any more. Particularly since there is no possible upside for them in the Ukraine war, they're basically in it for bloodymindedness.
And this time Britain isn't backed by the world's largest industrial economy. If anything, China is more likely to back Russia to avoid being encircled by the US.
But unified by it. Broadly speaking, the idea that missile blitzes and bombarding a population into submission from the air is as popular as it is proven failed by history. (I do not believe any population has been bombed into submission.)
> there is no possible upside for them in the Ukraine war
There was no upside to fighting Hitler, either. For Poland. For France. For the U.K. When fighting a nearby aggressor you're mitigating downside.
> bloodymindedness
Yes, the peaceful Russians absolutely not sending their non-ethnic Russian boys to the meat grinder.
> this time Britain isn't backed by the world's largest industrial economy
They're also not fighting one of the world's largest industrial economies. Russia is no Nazi Germany.
> Russians are being given two options by the US - surrender or escalate
Or consolidate. Or negotiate. Also, you’re collapsing surrender into zero dimensions when in reality it’s multidimensional. Nobody expects unconditional surrender, for example.
Putin is playing a stupid game. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. If Putin gets territory out of this, however, it wasn’t a stupid game. Invading and annexing countries by force is back in play and the post-WWII consensus, including the international rules of war, are renegotiable. If that’s true, I’d say America should pick up some Pacific islands.
> What concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation?
In reality? Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine. Basically, America de facto leaves NATO and Russia leaves most of Ukraine. In exchange, Russia joins America against China and brings Pyongyang with them. (Also sanctions relief. Maybe also have Russia leave OPEC+.)
If Trump weren't President, the concessions would be sanctions relief, recognition of Russia's pre-2022 claims on Ukrainian territory (subject to plebescite and compensation to Kyiv) and a treaty guarantee Ukraine wouldn't be admitted into NATO.
>In reality? Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine. Basically, America de facto leaves NATO and Russia leaves most of Ukraine.
I want some of what this guy is smoking. If you think the US will ever offer to leave NATO, you aren't living in reality. Not going to happen, and specially not after the invasion of Ukraine.
> Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine. Basically, America de facto leaves NATO and Russia leaves most of Ukraine.
Russia's pre-war demands were less extreme than that, Wikipedia suggests [0] the Russians just wanted a de-facto pullback. Why do you think the US would have changed their stance? If they were willing to offer anything like that I doubt the war would have happened at all.
This kinda goes to my main point. If the US was willing to do anything even a little bit like that at all, this could all have probably been avoided. You're suggesting a sane offer - I too think a sane offer would allow things to wind down fairly quickly. The issue is that after 3 years of war it is clear that the US is not willing to make a deal like that.
Trump might be able to change that, I hope he can, but the odds seem stacked against him. He is in a key position buy doesn't have that much negotiating power; what you're suggesting looks to me like an unconditional US fold. Trump'd quite possibly end up in a lot of trouble. And there is no way it has been an option open to the Russians for the last 3 years.
> Russia's pre-war demands were less extreme than that
Than what? I gave two scenarios.
The requirements "that NATO deploy no forces or weapons in countries that joined the alliance after May 1997," "any NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, or Central Asia" and "a requirement that both side's nuclear weapons only be deployed on national territory" are non-starters across the board.
They're the equivalent of requiring Russia withdraw entirely from Africa and the Middle East and stop selling weapons to India.
The US de-facto leaving NATO is a bigger concession than Russia asked for pre-war. Maybe do a little reset here to just one probable-case scenario? What concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation?
I don't understand how you can suggest "America de facto leaves NATO" as an option but also commit to NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus. If the US de-facto is out of NATO it has no business in any of those places. Unless you mean de-facto the US stays in NATO and de-jure leaves it as some sort of fake concession.
And requiring that everyone keeps nuclear missile deployments on their own territory is just common sense. We shouldn't need Russia to ask for the US to agree to that, everyone should start from that point. Forget a Russian ultimatum, the US should be doing that if it isn't already. If that is an unacceptable point I condemn the US for it and their pigheadedness, although I assume it is actually acceptable.
So we’re ignoring that multiple pre-war demands by Moscow are obvious non-starters. Including for Moscow?
> don't understand how you can suggest "America de facto leaves NATO" as an option but also commit to NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus
I didn’t.
Hypothetical versus reality. Normative versus positive.
> requiring that everyone keeps nuclear missile deployments on their own territory is just common sense
This is the sort of nonsense that gives countries like China and Russia the upper hand. Armchair generals in the voting public forgetting about SLBMs. Or the fact that Russia invaded Europe the last time it didn’t have a nuclear umbrella.
I don't think any of them are non-starters, indeed I think one should have been given immediately without Moscow asking. But this is obviously going to be a long thread and that isn't the area that is most interesting to me about your opinions.
> I didn’t.
This on the other hand is. So what concessions do you think the US is willing to make if Moscow negotiates? Because the last time I asked I got a "In reality? Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine". And there is no way that that is something the US is going to offer, since that is more than Putin was asking to before the war started. Even the mildest options on your list were things like "treaty guarantee Ukraine wouldn't be admitted into NATO" which was asked for in pre-war negotiations and rejected by NATO - people made a big deal about how no, if Ukraine want they are eventually going to join NATO and there is nothing the Russians could do about it. The NATO negotiators would much rather have this war happen & continue than make concessions like that - we can tell because that is what they did and are doing.
If you don't think these suggestions are serious - I'm struggling to understand your position here but it seems that you might be just throwing out ideas - what do you think is on offer at the negotiating table? Russia tried negotiating and it doesn't cut much ice with NATO, that is why we have this stupid war. I assume I'm misinterpreting your comment on the topic, so hopefully some exposition and clarification by yourself will help.
I reiterate that I think Russia is being offered, to a first approximation anyway, "give up, admit defeat and let the US do what it wants". I'm interested to see what you think the Russians can get from negotiating that they can't get from effectively surrendering.
> Armchair generals in the voting public forgetting about SLBMs.
My armchair staff were of the opinion that SLBM were not part of the conversation since they were deployed at sea rather than to nations. I'd be happy if everyone abided by that condition if it does include SLBM, it seems like a good idea to me. Those things nearly triggered a nuclear exchange in the Cuban Missile Crisis, they are too risky and will, literally, eventually get us all killed. And while avoiding nuclear war might give Russia and China the upper hand, I've been pointing out for years that the US's industrial and financial policies are going to put it at a major material disadvantage to anyone who adopts more competent policies. Their foreign policy is also on that list of things they are screwing up.
> Why does it matter if it is "nuclear-class"? Were there any actual nukes? No. Then who cares?
Because you don’t know it’s not nuclear tipped until it lands. A nuclear-capable missile streaking West out of Russia looks identical to a first strike on early warning radars.
Nothing, if you assume Putins decisions are made in a vacuum.
If on the other hand you grant that he might observe the leaders of world super powers, you’ll notice a striking connection between the change of power in America and the launch of his invasion of Ukraine.
And of course you can assume all of Netenyahoo’s decisions are made in a vacuum too, or you can open your eyes.
^ great example of the evil-Biden mentality I described above. I wonder, do the folks who are opposed to my viewpoint generally support this narrative?
Ah, anon downvotes but no vocal support. Aka: that sentiment looks awful and I won’t put my name to it, but also fuck you, you aren’t toeing the liberal party line if you question it.
you are one of those wholl be queuing to fight the evil enemy if your leader says so, fine (or send your sons to do so, depending on your age)...thats all well an dandy. Myself and every other reasonable individuals will prefer the evil enemy bleeds itself into nonexistence before that is needed.
> Human lives...
are you kidding!? these guys are after us and wont stop until their stopped
They’re after you, are they? Those people who you’ve never met, never once interacted with? Who have never made any attack on US soil? Who instead are facing attacks from US weapon systems onto their soil? Those guys, are “after” you?
Its very easy: who is pointing their weapons towards you? those are your enemies...make no mistake, Russia is our enemy. Not because its Russia but because the nuthead they have as president.
im talking about nukes man...irakis dont have them...you have to open your eyes, do you want to be a saint or something? your discourse doesnt add up, have you heard about self-defense? its in your genes: somebody hits you or threatens you, youll instantly be either running or fighting, its a reflex
It’s a good thing Iraqis never faced a false accusation about WMD, painting them as the enemy and fair target for defense. Otherwise you might look really silly.
Again, looking for a third party to confirm this is inline with the modern liberal groupthink and not just the rantings and ravings of some particularly murderous extremist.
Biden, on his best days, cant hardly remember his name mate… if you think Biden is making these decisions I have some Enron stock options to sell to you
> The fact is, the US has enough active missile defense that if all out nuclear war were to happen, the US would likely survive and Russia wouldn't
This is just blatantly false. GMD, on paper, could intercept maybe 10-20 missiles by design. And the accuracy and reliability of that system is severely in question. The Aegis Ballistic Missile defense really can’t be expected to intercept ICBMs either, outside of certain conditions.
If we're being completely honest here, neither you, I, nor the guy you replied to has any idea what missile defenses we have. They would be among the most secret of programs because they only work if your enemy doesn't actively work to evade them.
Operational land-based Aegis BMD sites in Poland, Romania and the US.
Given how well Russian technology has performed in Ukraine versus American technology, I'd put money on American tech. I'd also put money on the US having systems that aren't public knowledge.
Russia's sabre rattling has grown increasingly unhinged and frequent which suggests they feel the same way.
Edit - should mention, it's thought that Russia has ~300 operational ICBMs. Also, I don't think our systems would be 100% effective. But I think they'd be effective enough that the US would survive.
So let's say the US could shoot down everything Russia throws at them, could tell apart all of the decoys, intercept every single MIRV warhead and take out every other secret weapon Russia may have deployed. It doesn't take many hits to take out a big chunk of the US population and wipe out its economy, so that would have to be done at 100% success rate over large parts of the country.
Europe cannot do anything remotely like that, so close to everything west of the Ural would burn and pretty much everyone there would die, hundreds of millions of dead and God knows how many more further to the east. The soot from burning cities and forests would darken the whole northern hemisphere for several growing seasons, large parts of the US population would probably just freeze or starve, more so if the US has been hit as well. And that leaves out fallout dispersal, especially from the inventories of nuclear power plants hit with nukes and so on.
There simply is no winning an all-out nuclear war.
> The soot from burning cities and forests would darken the whole northern hemisphere for several growing seasons
There's already been over 2000 nuclear warhead detonations and nothing remotely like that has happened. In fact, the fallout isn't noticeable at all. Granted, the tests were in remote locations, but all the planetary effects people worry about haven't happened at all.
> Europe cannot do anything remotely like that
Several European nations do have missiles capable of taking out ICBMs, on top of US Aegis sites, seaborne Aegis sites, Patriot batteries, etc...
> There simply is no winning an all-out nuclear war
Depends on what you consider winning. I agree it's bad. But equally bad is allowing dictatorships to do whatever they want because they have nukes. Which is where we're at. One day it's Ukraine, the next it's Lithuania, then it's Romania, Finland or Poland. Or maybe Taiwan. Then Japan. And so on. Where do we draw the line?
This hits a lil closer to home. This summer I lost my home when half our town burnt down in a 32,000 hectare forest fire. The other half is untouched and there's not even soot on the town, nevermind into the atmosphere. Massive amounts of boreal forest burn yearly. So their scenario is pure speculation with zero basis in reality.
15 million hectares burned in Canada alone in 2023. We average over 2 million hectares of burnt forest per year.
Some quick maths. 15 million ha is 150,000km2. Tsar Bomba blast area was 16km2. It would take over 9000 Tsar Bombas to burn as much forest as only Canada's 2023 forest fire season.
> Link 1 is talking about blast effect which is a different topic altogether
One, no—it’s about fire effects. It’s in the title.
Two, you literally cited blast area to estimate burn area.
Three, do you need a source for fires being able to spread? If I toss a match into a dry forest, is the area of the matchhead a predictor of particulate volume?
What I'm saying is... Tens of millions of hectares burn all the time, far more than all the nukes on earth would likely set on fire (since most of the populous cities on earth are on the coasts, and there's roads, farms and prairies surrounding most, not forests), so this idea that nukes would start forest fires that launch soot into the air that end civilization is pure fiction. There's zero basis for it, tens of millions of hectares worldwide burn yearly and it's barely noticeable if you don't live next to it.
> Given how well Russian technology has performed in Ukraine versus American technology, I'd put money on American tech
Capable of carrying 1,185 warheads. Plus decoys.
The “T” in THAAD stands for terminal. That means the warheads and decoys must be targeted separately. We’d need thousands of THAAD interceptors to even begin to feel comfortable about surviving, as a republic, a Russian nuclear exchange. (To say nothing of such an exchange immediately leaving us intensely vulnerable to China.)
Our missile defences protect against rogue nuclear states. North Korea. Some day, Iran. They are not intended to defeat MAD.
Mach 11 hypersonic missiles? Is it even possible to intercept something going that fast without your interceptor tearing itself apart?
Absolutely! The US ABM shield is meant to intercept incoming ICBMs, which in terminal velocity will be in excess of Mach 20. The difficulty with speed isnt that the interceptor will “tear itself apart” it’s just that it means less margin for error when plotting your intercept course
I bet there are nuclear tipped interceptors too, though that wouldn't be public. Its a lot easier to destroy the incoming missile if your margin of error is a few miles versus a few meters. Not to mention it would blot out all the multiple re-entry vehicles. The public wouldn't want to know that's the plan but it would sure beat nukes detonating in cities.
I even remember reading about how the Soviets planned to chain detonate nukes over Moscow in the event of an exchange to destroy incoming ICMBs.
GMD is hit-to-kill. Though I should point out that it’s broadly useless.
GMD is only capable of taking out 10-20 missiles at once. Russia and China both have hundreds of missiles, and if the DPRK isn’t there yet they will be soon. GMD is essentially useless at preventing a first strike. It was ostensibly meant for if a rogue state managed to launch a handful of ICBMs at the US, a scenario that really isn’t likely. What it would be useful for, is if the US were to strike first and take out the majority of the enemy’s missiles on the ground. To be clear, I don’t think that is why the US built it, and that isn’t part of the strategic thinking. But that possibility is exactly what Russia and China suspect about GMD. Hence their expansion of new weapons.
Yeah exactly. Shooting hundreds of bullets with your bullets. And each bullet you need to shoot breaks into smaller bullets upon re-entry that start randomly maneuvering. Hit to kill is just not practical against a peer firing hundreds of ICBMs.
That's why I suspect the US never stopped developing nuclear tipped ABMs with the Sprint I and II programs. They just went dark. It's the only logical way to defend against the only existential threat we face, and DC is gonna be first struck so you can bet the political class is incentivized to develop this.
Why keep it secret? Well first it interferes with MAD which is very destabilizing. Also its good to hold your most important cards close to your chest. And there's the fact that the public would be uncomfortable with the idea that our plan to survive involves so much radiation being thrown around. A lot of incentive to not talk about it...
I don’t think that makes sense. Where are the vast stockpiles of missiles? The silos? The thousands of people who would need to be on ready alert to launch those missiles? This also would require the US to have been cheating on the START treaties and probably the ABM treaty when it was in effect as well.
Also, nuclear-tipped ABM systems aren’t some sort of super power. Remember that all of this is happening in space at very high speeds. The Nike Zeus had to get within a kilometer of the target warhead before detonating. It’s not like you could throw a couple of these up and knock hundreds of incoming warheads out of the sky.
Not to forget: "Where are the rest of these?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_Program#/media/File:...
Or is there another option now, with the necessary coverage? From space, via SAT? Some sort of 'dent-detection' in the electromagnetic field instead, be it natural, or man-made?
Nuclear armed anti-balistic missiles have been made, but they're not in use as far as we know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_program Spartan missiles were set to be armed with 5 MT warheads!
AFAIK US doesn't have any ABM system that can intercept mach 20 ICBMs, let alone in terminal phase. The closest was FTM-44 in 2020 that hit an "ICBM representative" target midcourse in "highly favourable", i.e. not operational conditions. Which doesn't reveal speed of mock target, but IIRC there was testimony to subcommittee on strategic forces a couple years ago where director of missile defense stated US does not have systems to track "much less intercept" missiles going at mach20, suggesting limits of current capabilities. I would guess not much more than mach10, seeing how few Fattah 1s (mach10-15) were not intercepted in last round of ballistic attacks against Israel in October, where USS Bulkeley (which has ANSPY6V1 / aka highend AEGIS BMD) was trying to shoot them down with SM3s. Granted we don't know interception % of Bulkely, or how many they tried to intercept, but a lot of "high"end Iranian missiles (really medium tier) got through.
It could have, something like this, just more modern: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile) <- Tip glowing white hot while ascending with 100Gs. Whee!
Combine this with facilities like these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_Program and have modular mini nuke breeders on site, powering atmospheric capture of CO² to turn them into synthetic fuels. Pharaonic Profits!1!!
Shooting down nukes with mini nukes during terminal interception, i.e. over your soil is probably only going to fly during cold war hysteria. Safeguard was about protecting nukes in silos before SSBNs added survivability to triad.
I suggest: https://cnc.fandom.com/wiki/Firestorm_wall_section
Unconvinced :) Maybe something more like this? https://duckduckgo.com/texas+tesla+tower
But this still has to get reliable ännärdshy from somewhere, so the possible synergy between modular mini nuke plants to power on site atmospheric capture of CO² to produce clean synfuels still applies!1!!
Or maybe we could have an HVTC (High Voltage Teslatronic Current) atmospheric supersmartgrid, made out of a network of these.
(Bzzzt Brrzzzzt Bzzzt Brrzzzzt)
Has it been demoed/tested against hypersonic missiles?
Ugh, I really hate that term. “Hypersonic” just means traveling faster than 5 times the speed of sound. We’ve had ballistic missiles capable of exceeding that speed since the 1950s. ICBMs are hypersonic. So, yes, GMD has been tested against hypersonic missiles.
The latest hype is around “hypersonic glide body” type weapons. Where instead of traveling a straight ballistic trajectory they have small control surfaces and are capable of maneuvering. Ironically, though, having to maneuver like that makes such missiles slower, not faster, than an equivalent ballistic missile. And their maneuverability isn’t exactly huge, because at those speeds even small turns will impose significant g forces. So there’s this weird tradeoff between speed and maneuverability.
Hm yes, but depending on course/great circle distance ballistic missiles have an apogaeum between 1200km to 4500km. While anything which is 'boosted back down there' during ascent reaches maybe 300km max height, then doing 'skip reentry' stuff and/or powered steering at 100km to 200km. Which is less distance to cover.
I think the question was about hypersonic cruise, specifically whether ABM systems can detect a signature.
Ever since HN was taken over by LLMs you bump into these sort of arguments regularly. Indeed, it is pretty obvious how a real human would have interpreted and answered the question.
I wish HN had a "flag as LLM" button.
Strange dynamic here. Like, Russia invades Ukraine, and heavily bombs it.
And then when finally Ukraine bombs Russia back a little, somehow Russia's the victim and now they have to escalate?
What cry-bully narcissist cunts.
I actually don’t think that’s why Russia responded. The announcement about being able to us US missiles on Russian territory occurred too quickly for them to have launched this is response. I think this is Russias response to the opening of the Aegis Ashore ballistic missile shield in Poland, which has been in progress for years and just recently was made operational
> announcement about being able to us US missiles on Russian territory occurred too quickly for them to have launched this is response
Why? It’s a missile. It’s meant to be fired on short notice.
It’s a missile that has been developed in secret, for years. With a conventional payload, so that it could actually be used in a demonstration strike like this. That was apparently completed just in time to be used here. Makes sense that it is a reaction to the Aegis Ashore base in Poland, since that has been under way for years, the completion date could be predicted and planned for well in advance, and is of grave concern to the Russian state. Putin himself has constantly expressed concern about those missile defense bases, he’s very concerned that they could secretly loaded with nuclear-tipped tomahawk missiles and used for a sudden first strike.
It’s a bit academic, of course, why Russia decided to reveal the existence of this missile now, and employ it in Ukraine. It’s not like there’s only one reason why Russia did this.
Alternatively: it was a missile test aimed at a live target.
> he’s very concerned that they could secretly loaded with nuclear-tipped tomahawk missiles and used for a sudden first strike.
Putin knows that wouldn't happen, he's concerned about his own arsenal being neutralized.
Aegis really can’t intercept ICBMs except in very niche circumstances.
> What cry-bully narcissist cunts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_warfare
[flagged]
Bidens approval of the latest missiles has to be the most bone headed — nay, straight evil — actions committed by a US Chief of Staff since Bush. January can’t come soon enough. How many humans have died from this administration? Has it reached millions yet? Will it?
Are you forgetting who invaded whom here? What did the US have to do with any of that?
Also who fired the nuclear-class missile…
If they didn't, people would be talking about how their red lines are bluffs. The Russians are being given two options by the US - surrender or escalate. They aren't going to surrender. I'm not sure what people expect to happen but given the strategic madness out of the west we're probably doing well if we get all the way through this without London being targeted.
Whoever thought it was a good idea to try and turn Iraq 2 into WW3 really should be relieved of their power to make decisions. Russia was behaving well within international norms established by the US's actions until the west got involved in Ukraine. Now we've seen orders of magnitude more casualties for nothing, and the risk of nuclear war are off the hitherto plotted charts.
> we're probably doing well if we get all the way through this without London being targeted.
Putin might be stupid, but you think too lowly of him.
You attack population centers after mutually assured destruction. There is no reason to escalate by creating a humanitarian crisis if you're not already prepared to deal with the consequences (a-la Nagasaki/Hiroshima). The first attacks are tactical and therefore negligible in civilian damage and controversial to discuss. They will certainly be condemned globally, but no one smart enough to stockpile tactical nukes is going to use it somewhere with reprehensible civilian harm. It is both more valuable, smarter, and less costly to deploy it tactically against enemy installations or materiel.
If London is "targeted" then Russia is going to find out just how fucking bad Europe hates them. The nuclear dance is about riding the threshold of plausible escalation without revealing desperation and giving your enemies casus belli.
The Russians have figured out that the Europeans hate them, that is why we're all on day >1,000 of the current war and they're firming up relations with Asian powers in a way that is a net loss to the rest of us.
> You attack population centers after mutually assured destruction.
There have already been what are basically missiles targeting Moscow, any compunction about targeting Russia itself have been overcome and those storm shadows the other day were a pretty inflammatory gambit. It isn't there yet, but extrapolate forward 12 months and I think some sort of strike on the UK is on the cards. May as well be London. The British aren't going to stop until something stops them, if they don't see a red line at hitting Russia proper then they probably don't see any at all anywhere. And Russia has been pretty clear through their targeting in Ukraine that they are happy to go for civilian infrastructure.
Fingers crossed they run out of money or steam before the situation gets much worse, I suppose.
> British aren't going to stop until something stops them
Yup. That’s why London folded after Hitler’s blitz.
Putin is a weak man. His hold on power depends on this war. He’s smarter than this comment because he knows a strike on London of any kind would result in Europe arming Ukraine for a kill versus the current strategy of keeping a low summer.
The UK was pretty much overwhelmed by the blitz; and the war overall broke them as a world power and they were forced to rely on foreign support to keep them fighting. That was all locked in very early on. And they only have a fraction of the staying power that they did the 1940s now, they can't handle that sort of pressure any more. Particularly since there is no possible upside for them in the Ukraine war, they're basically in it for bloodymindedness.
And this time Britain isn't backed by the world's largest industrial economy. If anything, China is more likely to back Russia to avoid being encircled by the US.
> UK was pretty much overwhelmed by the blitz
But unified by it. Broadly speaking, the idea that missile blitzes and bombarding a population into submission from the air is as popular as it is proven failed by history. (I do not believe any population has been bombed into submission.)
> there is no possible upside for them in the Ukraine war
There was no upside to fighting Hitler, either. For Poland. For France. For the U.K. When fighting a nearby aggressor you're mitigating downside.
> bloodymindedness
Yes, the peaceful Russians absolutely not sending their non-ethnic Russian boys to the meat grinder.
> this time Britain isn't backed by the world's largest industrial economy
They're also not fighting one of the world's largest industrial economies. Russia is no Nazi Germany.
> Russians are being given two options by the US - surrender or escalate
Or consolidate. Or negotiate. Also, you’re collapsing surrender into zero dimensions when in reality it’s multidimensional. Nobody expects unconditional surrender, for example.
Putin is playing a stupid game. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. If Putin gets territory out of this, however, it wasn’t a stupid game. Invading and annexing countries by force is back in play and the post-WWII consensus, including the international rules of war, are renegotiable. If that’s true, I’d say America should pick up some Pacific islands.
What concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation?
> What concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation?
In reality? Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine. Basically, America de facto leaves NATO and Russia leaves most of Ukraine. In exchange, Russia joins America against China and brings Pyongyang with them. (Also sanctions relief. Maybe also have Russia leave OPEC+.)
If Trump weren't President, the concessions would be sanctions relief, recognition of Russia's pre-2022 claims on Ukrainian territory (subject to plebescite and compensation to Kyiv) and a treaty guarantee Ukraine wouldn't be admitted into NATO.
>In reality? Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine. Basically, America de facto leaves NATO and Russia leaves most of Ukraine.
I want some of what this guy is smoking. If you think the US will ever offer to leave NATO, you aren't living in reality. Not going to happen, and specially not after the invasion of Ukraine.
> Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine. Basically, America de facto leaves NATO and Russia leaves most of Ukraine.
When did the US make that offer? I missed it.
> When did the US make that offer? I missed it
You asked "what concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation?" Not what concessions has the U.S. made.
Russia isn't negotiating. Only fools negotiate against themselves.
Russia's pre-war demands were less extreme than that, Wikipedia suggests [0] the Russians just wanted a de-facto pullback. Why do you think the US would have changed their stance? If they were willing to offer anything like that I doubt the war would have happened at all.
This kinda goes to my main point. If the US was willing to do anything even a little bit like that at all, this could all have probably been avoided. You're suggesting a sane offer - I too think a sane offer would allow things to wind down fairly quickly. The issue is that after 3 years of war it is clear that the US is not willing to make a deal like that.
Trump might be able to change that, I hope he can, but the odds seem stacked against him. He is in a key position buy doesn't have that much negotiating power; what you're suggesting looks to me like an unconditional US fold. Trump'd quite possibly end up in a lot of trouble. And there is no way it has been an option open to the Russians for the last 3 years.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin%27s_December_20...
> Russia's pre-war demands were less extreme than that
Than what? I gave two scenarios.
The requirements "that NATO deploy no forces or weapons in countries that joined the alliance after May 1997," "any NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, or Central Asia" and "a requirement that both side's nuclear weapons only be deployed on national territory" are non-starters across the board.
They're the equivalent of requiring Russia withdraw entirely from Africa and the Middle East and stop selling weapons to India.
The US de-facto leaving NATO is a bigger concession than Russia asked for pre-war. Maybe do a little reset here to just one probable-case scenario? What concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation?
I don't understand how you can suggest "America de facto leaves NATO" as an option but also commit to NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus. If the US de-facto is out of NATO it has no business in any of those places. Unless you mean de-facto the US stays in NATO and de-jure leaves it as some sort of fake concession.
And requiring that everyone keeps nuclear missile deployments on their own territory is just common sense. We shouldn't need Russia to ask for the US to agree to that, everyone should start from that point. Forget a Russian ultimatum, the US should be doing that if it isn't already. If that is an unacceptable point I condemn the US for it and their pigheadedness, although I assume it is actually acceptable.
More than half of the US nuclear arsenal is submarine based. Its central to US strategic deterrence and has been for decades.
So we’re ignoring that multiple pre-war demands by Moscow are obvious non-starters. Including for Moscow?
> don't understand how you can suggest "America de facto leaves NATO" as an option but also commit to NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus
I didn’t.
Hypothetical versus reality. Normative versus positive.
> requiring that everyone keeps nuclear missile deployments on their own territory is just common sense
This is the sort of nonsense that gives countries like China and Russia the upper hand. Armchair generals in the voting public forgetting about SLBMs. Or the fact that Russia invaded Europe the last time it didn’t have a nuclear umbrella.
I don't think any of them are non-starters, indeed I think one should have been given immediately without Moscow asking. But this is obviously going to be a long thread and that isn't the area that is most interesting to me about your opinions.
> I didn’t.
This on the other hand is. So what concessions do you think the US is willing to make if Moscow negotiates? Because the last time I asked I got a "In reality? Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine". And there is no way that that is something the US is going to offer, since that is more than Putin was asking to before the war started. Even the mildest options on your list were things like "treaty guarantee Ukraine wouldn't be admitted into NATO" which was asked for in pre-war negotiations and rejected by NATO - people made a big deal about how no, if Ukraine want they are eventually going to join NATO and there is nothing the Russians could do about it. The NATO negotiators would much rather have this war happen & continue than make concessions like that - we can tell because that is what they did and are doing.
If you don't think these suggestions are serious - I'm struggling to understand your position here but it seems that you might be just throwing out ideas - what do you think is on offer at the negotiating table? Russia tried negotiating and it doesn't cut much ice with NATO, that is why we have this stupid war. I assume I'm misinterpreting your comment on the topic, so hopefully some exposition and clarification by yourself will help.
I reiterate that I think Russia is being offered, to a first approximation anyway, "give up, admit defeat and let the US do what it wants". I'm interested to see what you think the Russians can get from negotiating that they can't get from effectively surrendering.
> Armchair generals in the voting public forgetting about SLBMs.
My armchair staff were of the opinion that SLBM were not part of the conversation since they were deployed at sea rather than to nations. I'd be happy if everyone abided by that condition if it does include SLBM, it seems like a good idea to me. Those things nearly triggered a nuclear exchange in the Cuban Missile Crisis, they are too risky and will, literally, eventually get us all killed. And while avoiding nuclear war might give Russia and China the upper hand, I've been pointing out for years that the US's industrial and financial policies are going to put it at a major material disadvantage to anyone who adopts more competent policies. Their foreign policy is also on that list of things they are screwing up.
Why does it matter if it is "nuclear-class"? Were there any actual nukes? No. Then who cares?
> Why does it matter if it is "nuclear-class"? Were there any actual nukes? No. Then who cares?
Because you don’t know it’s not nuclear tipped until it lands. A nuclear-capable missile streaking West out of Russia looks identical to a first strike on early warning radars.
Russia could bring a tactical nuke and use that with no warning. If they want to nuke Ukraine they can do it without "nuclear class" missiles.
Nothing, if you assume Putins decisions are made in a vacuum.
If on the other hand you grant that he might observe the leaders of world super powers, you’ll notice a striking connection between the change of power in America and the launch of his invasion of Ukraine.
And of course you can assume all of Netenyahoo’s decisions are made in a vacuum too, or you can open your eyes.
You mean "Commander-in-Chief" or "head of state".
Yes. I can’t edit unfortunately.
> How many humans have died from this administration?
400K russians (the enemy, remember?)...plus not as many Ukrainians which seem to have been ok-ish with it so far.
You waiting for January?...another 40k+ at current rates...if that clown doesnt owe Putin too much hell be wise to keep the massacre ongoing
^ great example of the evil-Biden mentality I described above. I wonder, do the folks who are opposed to my viewpoint generally support this narrative?
Ah, anon downvotes but no vocal support. Aka: that sentiment looks awful and I won’t put my name to it, but also fuck you, you aren’t toeing the liberal party line if you question it.
Disgusting.
you are one of those wholl be queuing to fight the evil enemy if your leader says so, fine (or send your sons to do so, depending on your age)...thats all well an dandy. Myself and every other reasonable individuals will prefer the evil enemy bleeds itself into nonexistence before that is needed.
> Human lives...
are you kidding!? these guys are after us and wont stop until their stopped
They’re after you, are they? Those people who you’ve never met, never once interacted with? Who have never made any attack on US soil? Who instead are facing attacks from US weapon systems onto their soil? Those guys, are “after” you?
Absolutely wild mentality.
Its very easy: who is pointing their weapons towards you? those are your enemies...make no mistake, Russia is our enemy. Not because its Russia but because the nuthead they have as president.
Those 400k humans were pointing their guns at you? And they deserve to die because of it? And the 400k humans on the other side too? Wild. Wild.
Do you feel the same about the Iraqis, I wonder?
im talking about nukes man...irakis dont have them...you have to open your eyes, do you want to be a saint or something? your discourse doesnt add up, have you heard about self-defense? its in your genes: somebody hits you or threatens you, youll instantly be either running or fighting, its a reflex
It’s a good thing Iraqis never faced a false accusation about WMD, painting them as the enemy and fair target for defense. Otherwise you might look really silly.
Again, looking for a third party to confirm this is inline with the modern liberal groupthink and not just the rantings and ravings of some particularly murderous extremist.
> rantings and ravings of some particularly murderous extremist
LOL
You laugh, yet you laugh alone. Look in a mirror.
you have to decide mate...are you looking for that third party to confirm shit or are you into a flame war with me?
I’ve held the same position on that since the beginning.
So it's "evil" to help a democratic country defend itself against genocide?
I guess then it's "good" when the coming administration will point the military against its own people and put them in camps?
>I guess then it's "good" when the coming administration will point the military against its own people and put them in camps?
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what brainwashing due to propaganda exposure looks like in real life.
It can indeed be considered propaganda when you listen to what they themselves are saying.
If they end up doing it and to what extent is an open question though.
Biden, on his best days, cant hardly remember his name mate… if you think Biden is making these decisions I have some Enron stock options to sell to you
Synecdoche.
[flagged]
[flagged]
> The fact is, the US has enough active missile defense that if all out nuclear war were to happen, the US would likely survive and Russia wouldn't
This is just blatantly false. GMD, on paper, could intercept maybe 10-20 missiles by design. And the accuracy and reliability of that system is severely in question. The Aegis Ballistic Missile defense really can’t be expected to intercept ICBMs either, outside of certain conditions.
If we're being completely honest here, neither you, I, nor the guy you replied to has any idea what missile defenses we have. They would be among the most secret of programs because they only work if your enemy doesn't actively work to evade them.
we've seen aircrafts drop out of the sky and also vanish
> The US and NATO just need to curb-stomp Russia out of Ukraine.
"just". If they could, done it would be. Western delusion is in an all time high. You lose.
> US has enough active missile defense that if all out nuclear war were to happen, the US would likely survive and Russia wouldn't
What? We absolutely don’t. Even if our missile defences work 1:1, that doesn’t account for decoys.
We should curb stomp Putin because the precedent he’s set, if accepted, will lead to nuclear war by prompting a global cascade of wars of conquest.
The US has at least 799 operational THAAD interceptors. Source: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12645/2
56 Aegis BMD equipped ships. Source: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL33745.pdf Japan also has 8 equipped ships.
Operational land-based Aegis BMD sites in Poland, Romania and the US.
Given how well Russian technology has performed in Ukraine versus American technology, I'd put money on American tech. I'd also put money on the US having systems that aren't public knowledge.
Russia's sabre rattling has grown increasingly unhinged and frequent which suggests they feel the same way.
Edit - should mention, it's thought that Russia has ~300 operational ICBMs. Also, I don't think our systems would be 100% effective. But I think they'd be effective enough that the US would survive.
So let's say the US could shoot down everything Russia throws at them, could tell apart all of the decoys, intercept every single MIRV warhead and take out every other secret weapon Russia may have deployed. It doesn't take many hits to take out a big chunk of the US population and wipe out its economy, so that would have to be done at 100% success rate over large parts of the country.
Europe cannot do anything remotely like that, so close to everything west of the Ural would burn and pretty much everyone there would die, hundreds of millions of dead and God knows how many more further to the east. The soot from burning cities and forests would darken the whole northern hemisphere for several growing seasons, large parts of the US population would probably just freeze or starve, more so if the US has been hit as well. And that leaves out fallout dispersal, especially from the inventories of nuclear power plants hit with nukes and so on.
There simply is no winning an all-out nuclear war.
> The soot from burning cities and forests would darken the whole northern hemisphere for several growing seasons
There's already been over 2000 nuclear warhead detonations and nothing remotely like that has happened. In fact, the fallout isn't noticeable at all. Granted, the tests were in remote locations, but all the planetary effects people worry about haven't happened at all.
> Europe cannot do anything remotely like that
Several European nations do have missiles capable of taking out ICBMs, on top of US Aegis sites, seaborne Aegis sites, Patriot batteries, etc...
> There simply is no winning an all-out nuclear war
Depends on what you consider winning. I agree it's bad. But equally bad is allowing dictatorships to do whatever they want because they have nukes. Which is where we're at. One day it's Ukraine, the next it's Lithuania, then it's Romania, Finland or Poland. Or maybe Taiwan. Then Japan. And so on. Where do we draw the line?
> already been over 2000 nuclear warhead detonations and nothing remotely like that has happened
They said "soot from burning cities and forests." Nothing about fallout.
This hits a lil closer to home. This summer I lost my home when half our town burnt down in a 32,000 hectare forest fire. The other half is untouched and there's not even soot on the town, nevermind into the atmosphere. Massive amounts of boreal forest burn yearly. So their scenario is pure speculation with zero basis in reality.
> Massive amounts of boreal forest burn yearly. So their scenario is pure speculation with zero basis in reality.
It's speculation shared by nuclear and climate scientists.
15 million hectares burned in Canada alone in 2023. We average over 2 million hectares of burnt forest per year.
Some quick maths. 15 million ha is 150,000km2. Tsar Bomba blast area was 16km2. It would take over 9000 Tsar Bombas to burn as much forest as only Canada's 2023 forest fire season.
Maybe provide some source for your assertion...
> Tsar Bomba blast area was 16km2. It would take over 9000 Tsar Bombas to burn as much forest as only Canada's 2023 forest fire season
The fire burns beyond the blast area.
Also, urban fires produce
> Maybe provide some source for your assertion
Sure [1][2].
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219184/
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00794-y
Link 1 is talking about blast effect which is a different topic altogether, link 2 is paywalled and is a magazine, not anything scholarly.
> Link 1 is talking about blast effect which is a different topic altogether
One, no—it’s about fire effects. It’s in the title.
Two, you literally cited blast area to estimate burn area.
Three, do you need a source for fires being able to spread? If I toss a match into a dry forest, is the area of the matchhead a predictor of particulate volume?
What I'm saying is... Tens of millions of hectares burn all the time, far more than all the nukes on earth would likely set on fire (since most of the populous cities on earth are on the coasts, and there's roads, farms and prairies surrounding most, not forests), so this idea that nukes would start forest fires that launch soot into the air that end civilization is pure fiction. There's zero basis for it, tens of millions of hectares worldwide burn yearly and it's barely noticeable if you don't live next to it.
> Tens of millions of hectares burn all the time, far more than all the nukes on earth would likely set on fire
Totally wrong. You’re still comparing forest and urban fires, and assuming you’ve calculated a burn mass from blast effects alone.
> There's zero basis for it
So you still haven’t read the first source. The one with “superfires” in the title.
comparing forest burning with a city of millions of people burning is such a nonsense, it is funny how you keep doubling down
> Given how well Russian technology has performed in Ukraine versus American technology, I'd put money on American tech
Capable of carrying 1,185 warheads. Plus decoys.
The “T” in THAAD stands for terminal. That means the warheads and decoys must be targeted separately. We’d need thousands of THAAD interceptors to even begin to feel comfortable about surviving, as a republic, a Russian nuclear exchange. (To say nothing of such an exchange immediately leaving us intensely vulnerable to China.)
Our missile defences protect against rogue nuclear states. North Korea. Some day, Iran. They are not intended to defeat MAD.
> The “T” in THAAD stands for terminal.
Yes. Terminal means the downward phase of a ballistic missile's flight. THAAD can target them before they reenter the atmosphere. That's the point.
And other BMD systems are designed to target them in the earlier phases of flight.
> THAAD can target them before they reenter the atmosphere
Not relevant. They've already separated. That means you have to count warheads and decoys, not missiles.
THAAD cannot intercept ICBMs…