Today the United States switched on the first segment of the European Defense Shield that it designed...

Today the United States switched on the first segment of the European Defense Shield that it designed, built and paid for to protect Europe.

It also handed over control of it to NATO command so European themselves can control it.

You're welcome Europe. You don't have to thank us or anything.

Just enjoy the extra layer of safety and continue on with your business.

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.com/news/world-europe-36272686
youtube.com/watch?v=vHRf4DLSiO4
defconwarningsystem.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5081
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Source

bbc.com/news/world-europe-36272686

The European continent is now protected by the same technology we use to defend our most important military assets.

sent :)

Eastern Europe can now sleep safe knowing that Russian or Iranian nuclear warheads will not rain down on it from space.

And if they do rain down they'll do so in Ramstein, so alles gut.

I'm more concerned about their army, pls send abrams (and obscene amounts of fuel required to keep them running)

Why does USA have to protect all these Eurofaggots for free? Can they not spend their own money for a military?

If we had to thank anyone it sure as hell wouldn't be the fat autists roleplaying as their country.

No they can't, they need every shekel for Islamic communism

you supported the otherwise weaker side in ww1 and permanently destabilized the region, it's your moral responsibility to keep some sort of order here

We do, but we're the only ones left. And the other EU members grumble because our budget is slightly in the red.
Apparently, they don't realize that modern nuclear submarines cost over €4 billion apiece or that liberating pieces of Africa from the islamists isn't precisely free. Or perhaps they think it's unecessary.

We don't think that of you, Pierre.

In fact it's cute to see you Pierres trying to be a miniature Murka propping up clientelar regimes and occasionally freedom-fighting those same clientelar regimes gone naughty boys in Niger, Burkina Fasso et al places that constitute la grandeur de la France.

This would be completely useless against current Russian (or other advanced) missiles.
One can only *hope* it would work against a single, low-tech missile (Iranian or North Korean. For now.)

It's not possible to devise cost efficient missile protection, you have to spend about 10 times what your opponent does in his weapons, and even then it's highly likely at least some of his stuff will go through.

The only real way is to have a modern nuclear deterence of your own (entirely designed, built and operated from your country), keep enough of it ready permanently (at least two subs on patrol) and make sure everyone understand their major cities will be nuked if they try anything funny. Which raises a problem in the case of mad dictators who may not care (like possibly Iran) or be stupid enough to not believe it (like possibly the US).

This is more symbolic than anything else. explained well.

I was talking about Mali, which was in the process of being overrun by islamists (you know, the ones who periodically strike in our country and yours).

those missiles wont target us anyway
but thanks for exploding the missiles above us
fucking amerijews, fuck off

I wonder if the people of hiroshima and nagasaki said that

We don't have a moral responsibility to keep Europe out of war.
>Permanently destabilized the region
It was never stable fucknugget, the closest you ever got was the Concert of Europe and that was more or less monarchistic NATO.

The reason why you twats are all sitting here picking your asses hasn't be explained, despite us asking constantly why.

Nuclear warheads don't detonate from explosions, they're timed.
An explosion would more likely simply break the machine used for fission/fusion and spill out some radioactive material, rather than turn an entire city into radioactive smog and ash.

Would it be possible to build an aircraft so large that it could carry and drop entire Nimitz aircraft carriers on our enemies?

A carrier bomber if you will.

Possibly? Probably.
Practical? Not at all.

Yeah, in fact the criticism about our current, M51 nuclear missile is that it is TOO advanced, and hence a waste of defense credits because the previous generation still would be impervious to any existing or planned defence system.

These things fly at 25 times the speed of sound and have the whole gamut of penetration aids. And since they're designed to hit things like Moscow or New York, they don't need to be accurate and are specially designed to re-enter in random, erratic ways which makes them a nightmare to even track much less intercept.

I doubt this kind of "shield" would knock down more than a few (if even that) of a full, 100+ warheads payback.

You're welcome

What does it do though?

It's still infant ABM systems, something is better than nothing, right?

It will improve over time.

Tracks and destroys incoming ICBMs.

>The reason why you twats are all sitting here picking your asses hasn't be explained, despite us asking constantly why.

Yes it has:
dumbfucks like
think it's "cute" to have an army these days. Note that his capital, Madrid, was bombed by islamists a few years ago. But he still thinks it's useless to prevent these guys from conquering whole countries (like Mali).

>to protect Europe
Poor ex gommies will believe america.

it wouldnt do shit if there was a actual war with russia, which it does not seem you realy fathom the possible implications or consequences of, as in, if there was a war with russia, it would all become a pile of rubble within 15 minutes and all life for miles around it fucked sideways

also, what the actual fuck would iran of all people be doing sending missiles into europe, like what majkl bey kind of logic is that, what would iran be doing sending live missiles into continental europe? what?

but im sure lockheed made a killer profit and will be making more

Is there a niche of amerifats that genuinely believe that if it weren't for Murica Yurop would be right away subjugated by an [insert country] invasion and a barrage of Iranian nuclear missiles and persian space immortales, 300 style, or is it just another Interwebz/Trumpez meme?

>It will improve over time.

No it won't, another problem is that it is a lot easier to improve the missiles than those defense toys. So here again, full advantage for the offense.

How does it destroy it? Tell me a bit about the machine. What did Icbm stand for again?

Mali ebony lads didn't bomb my country ever. The islamic lads in that business usually are from your country or from some friendly, western-allied arab country ruled by some Sheikh.

Still, pretty bad the boko haram lads are chimping out in your sub-saharan nigga playground. You should have taken more care of your local strongmen and dictators and the way the manage their 'countries'.

I agree with you on every point but not about the war with Russia. If they start to roll in their tanks (not nukes) to conquer (not raze) part of Europe, much like they've done in Georgia and Ukraine, it's not certain at all the US would immediately nuke them. And if the anger rose, Putin could always agree to stop his offensive but keep what he managed to conquer.
This would mean another Cold War with embargoes and stuff, but that's largely already the case.

Remember Obama "drew a red line" for Syria (use of chemical weapons) which Al Assad happily crossed, and what did Obama do? nothing.
Putin sure noticed, and decided to try his luck in Ukraine. And again, US (and European) response? feeble, and not military.
North Korea ramped up its programs of nuclear weapons and missiles, and got away with it too.

As for us, we are careful to maintain a proper deterence force, but it's only intented as reprisals for "threatening France's vital interests". So (for now) this doesn't include an invasion of Eastern Europe.

>Mali ebony lads didn't bomb my country ever
No, they're starting with the folks closest to them. You don't believe radical islamists are planning to conquer just Africa do you?

Remember your Reconquista?

>germany
>command and control centre
No...NOOOOOOO!

You underestimate ABM systems, improvements in software come every day and are closing gaps fast.

I don't understand why you don't invest some hope in the possibility of preventing nuclear holocaust.

Missiles with go up and explode other missiles with the help of specially designed guidance systems.
ICBM stands for Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile. They more often than not have nuclear warheads.

Nowadays no nobody honestly believes Europe will be invaded, which is why we want you lazy fucks to start defending your nations and let us leave.

Because Europe made you

>something is better than nothing
It's not even "something" here, except perhaps a sentiment of false security, which is extremely dangerous.

Maybe it's time you guys realize that the marketing of your defense industry is largely bullshit?

- Vietnam era: you planned to enjoy total air superiority with planes armed with missiles that could shoot down enemies before they could get close enough to become dangerous
End result? obsolete MiG-17 flown by 3rd world farmers get close and shoot down your toys, which weren't even equipped with a gun (since it was supposed useless) or piloted by guys trained for dogfights

- Yugoslavia era: this time you had "undetectable" stealth aircraft
End result? shot down by WW2 technology AA guns

-Gulf War: "failproof" Patriot antimissile system (already)
End result? "The Patriot missile system was not the spectacular success in the Persian Gulf War that the American public was led to believe. There is little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq during the Gulf War, and there are some doubts about even these engagements. The public and the United States Congress were misled by definitive statements of success issued by administration and Raytheon representatives during and after the war."

- Iraq and Astan: this time, it was "indestructible" tanks
End result? destroyed by improvised devices planted by irregulars from 3rd world countries

So, don't get your hopes too high on this "impregnable" defense system.

That's amazing. Is it like Israel's iron dome thing? How many missiles does it fire per incoming Icbm do you reckon?

Also final question, is it now impossible for Russia to nuke Europe?

This is a meme system that cannot stop ICBM nuclear strikes.

Literally meaningless shit meant as a political ploy.

At most it can take down 2-4 ICBM's, but that's unlikely if they are MIRV equipped.

It literally is physically impossible to improve much more.

>You underestimate ABM systems

No I don't, listen to the military personnel from all over the world who actually study the things (and the missiles), you'll understand quickly.

>closing gaps fast
Again, no, if anything the gap is WIDENING (see: our M51 missile which is criticized for being useless as the previous M4 still couldn't be intercepted).

>You underestimate ABM systems, improvements in software come every day and are closing gaps fast.

Are you baiting me?

Even America's own Aegis ABM system is max capable of taking down 20-30 ICBMs.

>I don't understand why you don't invest some hope in the possibility of preventing nuclear holocaust.

This is literally incentivizing Russia and China to create better and more ICBMs.

>Also final question, is it now impossible for Russia to nuke Europe?
it's far from perfect. in the case of a nuclear exchange, it could only stop a few missiles, not an all out attack. It wouldn't do much in the grand scheme of things.

Of course.... I still wonder just how many it can handle/how efficient it is. An all out nuclear war would bring the end of life as we know it anyway but I expect Russia to be smarter than that.

that doesnt mean europe shouldnt send forces to mali as the french allready did, and theres a dosen other places where this would apply

actualy if just the combined forces of france and germany, let alone all the other countries, especialy britain, went down to syria the war would be over in two weeks, same goes for libia, and the whole refugee crisis would so be fixed

but it seems people would rather find a bureaucratic solution or wrap themselves in razorwire

>Also final question, is it now impossible for Russia to nuke Europe?

No it's not, far from it. Even during its hard years, Russia has been careful to continue the development and production of ICBMs. Their latest ones are almost as good as ours, so you could argue they're also a waste of money because they're TOO good.

ABM don't work, except perhaps an extensive system of them against a single, low-tech missile (so, Iran or North Korea - for now).

Even the US isn't safe from Russian nukes. Or ours for that matter. Possibly China and the UK, too.

So you can have shitty roads and nil health system :3

thats one of the things tho, russia can steamroll into eastern europe whenever they want, nukes or no nukes, berlin would just shit themselves, bruxel would go into an in depth search of all their archives to find the right 'international complaint in case of largescale invasion' form, then spend two weeks updating it from cold war official jargon, paris would probably just raise their hands to god and london would go all screw you guys im going home and pull out of the union

and that would be it, no one would do anything

this is obvious because they openly did next to nothing about ukraine, as in right as the country was invaded and occupied in parts(remember it was the same thing with the yugo wars, which was without the russian threat, they could of done whatever, so they watched and sang eurovision songs)

they arent doing anything about libya or syria either, for all their fucking political sophistication and all the fucking lenghts they go to ensure shit works exactly this way or that they are incapable of even finding a agreed course of action on the refugee crisis, there could be another war in europe and another and they wouldnt do shit, because the EU are a bunch of bureaucratic fucks who dont know shit from a hole in the ground and have no solution to real problems, because for some 50 years now none of them ever dealt with real problems, only laws and paperwork and if that didnt work theyd throw enough money ower a thing and forget it

in the meantime those same fuctards invent legislations and standards that tell our farmers how to produce food and our firms what they can export and to who, and our gowerments what laws they should enforce

its all bullshit, if it was a concrete homogenous system that worked then fine, but its not, europe fell apart a year ago, now its just bickering about who gets to pull out first

iv got this naging suspicion switzerland is the only country keeping the whole thing together and keeping rusia friendly

>Remember Obama "drew a red line" for Syria (use of chemical weapons) which Al Assad happily crossed, and what did Obama do? nothing.

The US put the sixth and fifth fleets in position and started flying B-52s directly from the US right up to Syrias maritime border routinely.

Do you think it's a coincidence that Assad agreed to give up his chemical weapons right after that?

>If they start to roll in their tanks (not nukes) to conquer (not raze) part of Europe, much like they've done in Georgia and Ukraine, it's not certain at all the US would immediately nuke them.

Georgia and Ukraine are not part of NATO or EU members. I don't even think they are part of the European economic area.

Russia rolling tanks into Poland would trigger a full blown military response.

There are quite a few Hawks in the US brass that would love nothing more than to get into a shooting war with Russia.

I would like to build one of these.

How can I do that?

>European Defense Shield
youtube.com/watch?v=vHRf4DLSiO4
he-he-he-ha-ha-ho-he-he-he xDDDD

It's still a sort of work in progress.
I don't know much of the specifics but I do know some missiles will most likely get past and Russia could still potentially nuke Europe.

You're making mountains out of molehills and taking a few examples and pretending it's the as fundamental as the laws of nature.

>Vietnam
Most losses were to SAM's and AA, fighter to fighter ratio was 2:1 Mig & Phantom respectively.

>Yugoslavia
>38,000 sorties
>One shootdown
>xdd burger fuckt

>Gulf War
I admit the Patriot wasn't good anti-scud, but that's not what I was designed for, was it?

>Iraq and Afghanistan
It's somewhat expected that stacked mines hitting the lightly armored underbellies of vehicles causes catastrophic destruction.

Nuclear weapons are a nation life's insurance, as De Gaulle called them, "weapons not meant to be used".
The idea is preventing any enemy (the whole world, if need be) to seriously damage your country.

That's what allowed a tiny country like us to happily weather the Cold War, we had no intentions of killing Russians (our theory was that communism didn't work and their thing would collapse by itself) and they couldn't kill us (because we would nuke them in retaliation).

What if an absolute madman wants to end it all what then?

>It's somewhat expected that stacked mines hitting the lightly armored underbellies of vehicles causes catastrophic destruction

Not to mention that after MRAPs were introduced the lethality rate of IEDs dropped by like 70%.

GUYS, I GOT A SAMPLE OF OLD COLD WAR NUCLEAR LAUNCH CODES!

here they are!

AaLtOjEn sUpErPoSiTiOpErIaAtTeEn mUkAiSeStI MyÖs tOdEnNäKöIsYySaAlToJa vOiDaAn lAsKeA YhTeEn jA SaAdA JoTaKiN UuTtA

SyStEeMiÄ KuVaAvA AaLtOfUnKtIo. TiLoJeN LoMiTtUmInEn tAi kIeToUtUmInEn (EnGl. EnTaNgLeMeNt) TaRkOiTtAa sItÄ, eTtÄ YhDeN

HiUkKaSeN TiLa sIsÄlTäÄ InFoRmAaTiOtA MyÖs jOnKiN ToIsEn (MaHdOlLiSeStI HyViNkIn eTäIsEn) HiUkKaSeN TiLaStA; mOlEmPiA

HiUkKaSiA SiIs kUvAa yKsI, mUtTa aVaRuUdElLiSeStI JaKaUtUnUt, AaLtOfUnKtIo. LoMiTtUnUt tIlA/AaLtOfUnKtIo vOi sYnTyÄ

EsImErKiKsI KaHdEn hIuKkAsEn tÖrMäTeSsÄ TaI JoNkIn hIuKkAsEn hAjOtEsSa uUsIkSi hIuKkAsIkSi. KvAnTtImEkAnIiKaN ErIkOiSuUs

oN, eTtÄ EpÄtArKkUuSpErIaAtTeEn mUkAiSeStI YhDeN HiUkKaSeN TiLaN MiTtAaMiNeN VaIkUtTaA MyÖs tOiSeN LoMiTtUnEeN

HiUkKaSeN TiLaAn, Ja tÄmÄ TiLaN MuUtOs tApAhTuU VäLiTtÖmÄsTi.
KvAnTtImEkAnIiKaN MuKaAn sChRöDiNgErIn yHtÄlÖä nOuDaTtAvIiN AiNeHiUkKaSiIn lIiTeTäÄn aAlToFuNkTiO, jOnKa aVuLlA VoIdAaN

EnNuStAa eRiLaIsTeN MiTtAuStEn tOdEnNäKöIsYyKsIä. EsImErKiKsI ElEkTrOnIeN KaKsOiSrAkOkOkEeSsA HaVaItTu

iNtErFeReNsSiKuViO VoIdAaN SeLiTtÄä tOdEnNäKöIsYySaAlToJeN KeSkInÄiSeN VuOrOvAiKuTuKsEn aVuLlA, eIkÄ ElEkTrOnIn sItEn

nÄhDä kUlKeVaN KlAsSiSeStI VaIn tOiSeN RaOn kAuTtA. hIuKkAsTa kUvAaVa tOdEnNäKöIsYySaAlTo vOi sIiS MuOdOsTuA UsEaMmAn

aAlLoN SuMmAnA, sUpErPoSiTiOnA. kUn hIuKkAsEn tIlAa mItAtAaN, nIiN LoPpUtUlOkSeEn vAiKuTtAvA ErI TiLoJeN SuPeRpOsItIo

hÄvIäÄ VäLiTtÖmÄsTi jA HiUkKaNeN AsEtTuU HaVaItUlLe tIlAlLe. TäMä iLmIö oN KoKeIsSa hAvAiTtU PiEnIlLe - kVaNtTiMeKaAnIsIlLe -

hIuKkAsIlLe, MuTtA MiTä tApAhTuU JoS HiUkKaSeT SuUrEnEvAt mAkRoSkOoPpIsEeN MiTtAkAaVaAn sAaKkA? mAkRoSkOoPpIsIlLa

hIuKkAsIlLa oN TuNnEtUsTi kOkO AjAn tÄsMäLlInEn tIlA, jOtEn kVaNtTiMeKaAnIsEn ePäMäÄrÄiSyYdEn tUlEe aRkIjÄrJeN MuKaAn

jOsSaIn vAiHeEsSa hÄvItÄ, kUn sIiRrYtÄäN AtOmItAsOlTa mAkRoSkOoPpIsIiN KlAsSiSeN FySiIkAn kApPaLeIsIiN.
sChRöDiNgErIn kIsSa -TiLoIkSi

>Georgia and Ukraine are not part of NATO or EU members
Georgia had sent troops in Iraq to support the US invasion, in fact they had trouble fighting off the Russians because part of the Georgian army was in Iraq.

The US (and UK) signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, which promised to uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine, in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.

Please enlighten me, fellas: why don't Russia see there's no point in being a big bully and simply join NATO, opposing what is now the true enemy (extremists)? Can't it just give up on trying to be scary to western powers, when Russia is already westernized?

because extremists are never the true enemy, they are more like teaching your dog to shit on the neighbours lawn

No, I'm not making it a law of nature, I'm stating that "invincible weapons" never are.
Check a list of "unsinkable" warships that ended up at the bottom of the sea.

War always was dangerous business, still very much is today, and will remain so in the foreseable future. And it's much better to prepare for it with this in mind.

Just like how nukes are the pinnacle of modern weapons and will never be countered?

>The US (and UK) signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, which promised to uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine, in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.

Oh true, I had forgotten about that one.
See folks, Ukraine mistake is what a country should NOT do:
1) trust somebody else to defend you (obviously including the US)
2) give up on your nuclear weapons

In contrast, in the 50s we embarked on producing our own nukes and relieve the US troops of their duties in France, and it's been all the better for us.

We still continue to improve them. And most likely they will be replaced by something even more destructive.
I did say "foreseable future", not forever. When we started this war business it was all the rage about chainmail, warhorses and lances, and it only lasted a few centuries.

>umlauted characters

Which country did you steal these codes from?

We did try something like that once, it was called "the Maginot Line".
We weren't too happy about the results, so we would advise against it.

Here's a good set of resources regarding this subject:

defconwarningsystem.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5081

Like I said earlier, it wouldn't work about a religious cracknut like some Iranian leaders, or a total moron like Dubbya. But these are a relatively new phenomenon.

well its not like if you counter 9 out of 10 sent on a target the target is saved is it?

also what happens if that mutibillion heap of tin gets hit by some grad missiles, or a drone attack?

what then, does it have a forcefield?

YhTeNä sUuRiMpAnA FyYsIkKoNa pIdEtTy gAlIlEo gAlIlEi vAsTuStI NäYtTäVäStI KiRkOn oPpEjA. gAlIlEi lOi pOhJaN KlAsSiSeLlE FySiIkAlLe jA HäNtÄ KuTsUtAaN UsEiN KlAsSiSeN FySiIkAn iSäKsI. gAlIlEi tEkI PaLjOn lIiKkEeSeEn lIiTtYvIä tUtKiMuKsIa. YkSi kUuLuIsImMiStA TaRiNoIsTa oN, eTtÄ GaLiLeI PuDoTtElI ErI PaInOiSiA KaPpAlEiTa pIsAn kAlTeVaStA ToRnIsTa. GaLiLeI HuOmAsI MiTtAuStEnSa jA ArIsToTeLeEn oPpIeN VäLiLlÄ RiStIrIiDaN: kApPaLeIdEn pUtOaMiSaIkA Ei rIiPu kApPaLeIdEn mAsSaStA. gAlIlEi kEhItTi mYöS NyKyIsEn tIeTeElLiSeN MeNeTeLmÄn, JoNkA MuKaAn tEoRiAn jA KoKeIdEn pItÄä oLlA SoPuSoInNuSsA. mUiTa gAlIlEiN AiKaLaIsIa oLiVaT ChRiStIaAn hUyGeNs, JoHaNnEs kEpLeR Ja bLaIsE PaScAl. SaMaLlA VuOsIsAdAlLa tErMoDyNaMiIkKa aLkOi kEhItTyÄ NoPeAsTi. Jo gAlIlEi eSiTtI LäMpÖmItTaRiN ToImInTaPeRiAaTtEeN, mUtTa vArSiNaIsEsTi tErMoDyNaMiIkAn iSäNä vOiDaAn pItÄä oTtO VoN GuErIcKeA, jOkA KeHiTtI 1650-lUvUlLa eNsImMäIsEn tYhJiÖpUmPuN.[12] tErMoDyNaMiIkKaA KeHiTtIvÄt vOn gUeRiCkEn jÄlKeEn mUuN MuAsSa tHoMaS YoUnG Ja rObErT BoYlE.

TiEtEeN VaLlAnKuMoUs kUlMiNoItUi vUoTeEn 1687, jOlLoIn iSaAc nEwToN JuLkAiSi tEoKsEnSa pHiLoSoPhIaE NaTuRaLiS PrInCiPiA MaThEmAtIcA. tEoKsEsSaAn nEwToN EsItTeLeE LiIkElAkInSa, JoHoN KlAsSiNeN MeKaNiIkKa pErUsTuU. pRiNcIpIaSsAaN NeWtOn eSiTtElEe pAiNoVoImAlAkInSa sEkÄ MuUtAmAn tEoRiAn kOsKiEn vIrTaUsDyNaMiIkKaA. mYöHeMmIn kLaSsIsTa mEkAnIiKkAa mUoKkAsIvAt jA LaAjEnSiVaT ErItYiSeStI LeOnHaRd eUlEr, JoSePh-lOuIs lAgRaNgE, wIlLiAm rOwAn hAmIlToN Ja mOnEt mUuT, jOtKa tEkIvÄt uUsIa lÖyTöJä tEoReEtTiSeN FySiIkAn aLaLlA.

VuOnNa 1738 DaNiEl bErNoUlLi jUlKaIsI TeOkSeNsA HyDrOdYnAmIcA, jOkA KäSiTtElI StAtIiKaN TeOrIaA Ja nEsTeIdEn lIiKkEiTä. SaMaLlA TeOs lOi pOhJaN KiNeEtTiSeLlE KaAsUtEoRiAlLe. KuUsIkYmMeNtÄ VuOtTa mYöHeMmIn bEnJaMiN ThOmPsOn hAvAiNnOlLiStI, kUiNkA MeKaAnIsEeN TyÖhÖn kÄyTeTtY EnErGiA MuUtTuU LoPuLtA LäMmÖkSi, Ja vUoNnA 1847 jAmEs jOuLe sAi mItAtUkSi, MiKä mÄäRä mEkAaNiStA EnErGiAa vAsTaA MiTäKi

Give the EU some time (a century or two). It took time to create a working democracy here, and even now it's very far from perfect and many people claim for yet another, Sixth, republic.

The EU is a far more ambitious project (everyone called it impossible at first) but we may have no other choice these days. So we'll have to make it work.

But possibly it will mean some sort of conventional war with Russia, yes. The current situation is very much like the 30s except Putin is probably a lot more reasonable than Hitler and I don't think he's ready to die or destroy Russia.

Probably 2-4.

You need about 5-7 Abm's per ICBM.

Those are the names of scientists
>Joule, Pascal, Bernouilli

What's an abm? I really know fuck all about weapons and bombs and acronyms, sorry...

>The US put the sixth and fifth fleets in position and started flying B-52s directly from the US right up to Syrias maritime border routinely.

We were doing that since 2011.

>Do you think it's a coincidence that Assad agreed to give up his chemical weapons right after that?

Putin did that. He was the one who suggested it to Biden.

Any US invasion of Syria would have recieved Russian military response. It is rumored that Putin threatened limited nuclear use.

So Obama pulled back.

sKoTlAnTiLaInEn jAmEs cLeRk mAxWeLl eSiTtElI 1800-lUvUlLa yHtÄlÖnSä, JoIsSa hÄn kUvAa sÄhKö- Ja mAgNeEtTiKeNtTiÄ SeKä nIiDeN VuOrOvAiKuTuStA. nE JoHtIvAt mYöS PäÄtElMäÄn, EtTä vAlOkIn oN SäHkÖmAgNeEtTiStA AaLtOlIiKeTtÄ. 1800-LuVuN LoPuLlA SaKsAlAiNeN WiLhElM RöNtGeN LöYsI RöNtGeNsÄtEiLyN Ja sAi hAvAiNnOsTaAn eNsImMäIsEn nObElIn fYsIiKaNpAlKiNnOn.

iHmIsEn uSkO FySiIkKaAn jA MuIhIn tIeTeIsIiN KoHoSi nOpEaStI HuIpPuUnSa. 1800-lUvUlLa tEhDyT VaLtAvAt lÖyDöT SaIvAt iHmIsEt uSkOmAaN TiEtEeSeEn jA SiIhEn, EtTä tIeDe rAtKoO KaIkKi iHmIsTeN OnGeLmAt tUlEvAiSuUdEsSa.

They are also so impractical the military scrapped 80,000 of them the last 4 years.

Russia tried in 1999-2000.

Guess which country vetoed it three times.

its the one u use to try to stop the other one with

If America finds a counter to ICBM's, we can expect Russia to nuke us nefore we deploy it.

Hence why we only deploy meaningless ABM systems that can take down 2-4 ICBM's max.

Ballistic missile killer.

It's also a meme.

Patriot missile success rates in the Gulf War 1 and 2 were sub 20%.

That's still amazing. The technology must be even greater now right?

I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged. It's really great

"sub 20%" means "suspected 0%" (by Congress) and that was against obsolete Scud missiles (which never were impressive even when brand new).
And those were tactical missiles fired from a truck, not "real" ones.

Literally every country in NATO besides a small handful actually meet NATO spending targets

She's such a fun bitch isn't she?
She's exactly how an American writer/philosopher should be namely completely removed current European thought

write to [email protected] and [email protected] and try and sell them your idea

You use this for every millitary asset
we use it for whole Europe

Yep seems ok.

Just gib us some of ur nuclear weps, lulz

Best offense --> best defence.

>Operation Squirrel
Impressive, but check this out

Yeah, but NATO spending targets mean "small auxiliary forces to augment the US ones". Useless by themselves, even to defend their country.

After WW2 when part of Europe was on the other side and some countries were recovering, this was undestandable.
Nowadays, the EU has a larger population and economy than the US, so at the very least it should be able to defend itself. We've got so much more potential than Russia it's not even funny.

I agree with the Americans on that.
Also, look at what happened to Ukraine, whom the US (and UK) pledged to defend. And Georgia, which had troops engaged in Iraq to help America in its war. Who's next?

but user, shes a complete moron

What the fuck why was it so shit? Iron dome was super successful though right? The jew thing.

This is just finnish text about quantum physics, what the fuck are you going on about Australia?

riiight
sure it is genghis....

Because the keyword in American Defense Industry is "Industry" not "Defense".

Check out this movie, it's hilarious and a true story, and explains the situation well:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars

(you'll find torrents on pirate bay and such).

Now to be honest, the Patriot was designed to shoot down planes, not missiles.

fuck off and die soon

you anglo kike frauds

how much did that thing cost you?

What's the point in defending Europe? They can't even defend their own borders against foreign hordes and they'll implode from within anyway. A nuclear Armageddon would actually save Europe

Oh thank you I will! You didn't comment on the israeli iron dome Btw, what do you think of it?

>Just gib us some of ur nuclear weps
>Best offense --> best defence

We *do* have European nuclear weapons, brand new, too.
We just have to magically turn the "French" submarines into "European" submarines. So, just paint Euro flags on the current flags, basically.
Of course, everyone would have to chip on the bills, though.

Oh, and about the non-proliferation Treaty: not to worry about, we're one of the 5 countries allowed to build nukes. The UK is, as well. So the rest of the world will be cool with that.