See this thing? It's Aegis Ashore, which has just been deployed in Romania...

See this thing? It's Aegis Ashore, which has just been deployed in Romania. It can shoot down Russian ICBMs in the atmosphere.

To give you an idea of how effective it is: Russia could fire one third of their land-based ICBMs in one salvo at Romania and it is possible although unlikely that Aegis bolstered with THAAD could shoot down every single one.

NATO is planning another site in Poland. Both of these together will neuter Russia's ability to destroy Europe, so they are likely to retarget the missiles towards the US, which will wipe out civilian life there almost completely, which would not be the case if their missiles were spread out.

Why are they doing this? Because the powers that be are planning to start a war and destroy the US and Russia if Trump wins the presidency.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_Program
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>THAAD is a go


The rest of that is a far stretch OP, but could be possible. Tense times we're in

OP, the entire anti-ICBM system is being used to destroy enemy ICBM's for NATO and it's allies, which include the U.S.

The U.S. would not have that tech there if it's not to defend the mainland.

this stuff is awesome tell me more

Nothing new, cruisers have had this capability for quite a while. Russia is saber-rattling over something they knew was in play for years. They just don't want to/can't afford to step up the arms race.

Russia is vastly expanding her military capacity and has been for years. Some of the new generation stuff is easily comparible to the western counterparts.

just give us the nukes already

What about Hypersonic nuclear missiles?

Are you serious?

>It can shoot down Russian ICBMs

No it can't.

Maybe, but they don't have the economic power to maintain them longterm.

Sure, but to what end? It's better to make them play catch-up than have no defense at all.
>how dare NATO defend itself against fucking nukes.

Yes, it can

>It can shoot down Russian ICBMs in the atmosphere.
dream on...
if they wanted take out your sharia shithole they would do it
btw is vaseline halal mohammed?
are you alowed to use it when the bear comes to rape you?

>>how dare NATO defend itself against fucking nukes.
Hello CIA.

>It can shoot down Russian ICBMs

Nope.

Hitting an ICBM with an anti-ICBM has been likened to hitting a bullet with a bullet. Considering that the fastest bullets have a muzzle velocity of about 0.76 miles per second, one could argue that the Israeli Iron Dome system does hit a bullet with a bullet. Trying to hit an ICBM with a GMD-fired missile is an order of magnitude faster than that.

All available evidence, however, suggests that it’s extremely easy for the ICBM to launch countermeasures that would drastically reduce the chances of the anti-ICBM missile from effectively locking on target. IO9 has a rundown of the countermeasure options, and they aren’t pretty.

>and it is possible
No its not.

>Both of these together will neuter Russia's ability to destroy Europe
They still got SLBM

This is a fucking terrible shit idea because not only does it not work, it also makes the retards in power think they might actually win a full out nuclear exchange. It destroy the idea of MAD and when that is gone nuclear weapons are basically pointless, if you have to use them you have all ready failed.

You're a U.S/EU/NATO colony, not a ''partner'', get it through your thick skull.

Why anti-ICBM missile defense can’t work
The fundamental issue with any anti-ICBM missile system is that it’s going to cost orders of magnitude more money to develop an effective interception system than it does to throw more ICBMs at the target. One of the reasons Israel’s Iron Dome system works is because the insurgents it defends against can’t hurl thousands of missiles into Israeli airspace in a matter of minutes. Even so, it’s more of a psychological protective measure than an effective one.

>Both of these together will neuter Russia's ability to destroy Europe

considering the amount of warheads russia has, i sincerely doubt this.

I would be more concerned about iran than Russia.
Russians are at least semi rational and not a theocracy.

>and destroy the US and Russia
Fuck yeah, Europe reigns supreme again.

>austrian """""""""banter""""""""""

>It can shoot down Russian ICBMs in the atmosphere.

Until it actually happens I'd take that with a pinch of salt. Claims of being able to shoot down ICBM's are almost always overstated by companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin to get a piece of that sweet sweet military industrial complex money.

These things are built to make money for their shareholders and expand military influence near Russia's borders. They're not designed to shoot down hundreds of Russian ICBM's cos that's a scenario that's nearly certain never to happen.

The military will mutiny and the people will rise.

Anti-ICBM weapons don't actually try to "hit" the oncoming warhead. That's practically impossible. What they do is predict where the missile will be and then detonate their own hugely messy payload in front of the flight path and pray you fuck it out of the sky when it collides with the blast.

>implying ICBMs would ever be used in a first-strike scenario vs second-strike after short-ranged ground-hugging submarine-launched warheads already took out all known defensive systems

>it can shoot down ICBM's
Nope.

>Aegis bolstered with THAAD
more like SM6 missiles, they can shoot down ballistic missiles too

>so they are likely to retarget the missiles towards the US, which will wipe out civilian life there almost completely
no, because if they want to hit the US with nukes - only in a first strike, and then they have to attack US missile silos and military bases.
the russian doesn't have enough missiles for that... and especially not enough for the cities, so, don't worry about that

>Why are they doing this?
so save europe from russian nuclear mid-range missiles and any kind of invasion by air (because these aegis ashore systems will annihilate literally anything that flys through the air in it's area)

>The USA has no missile defense systems
k

I am amazed at the amount of knowledge in threads like these

>Not only does it not work
It works enough for nuclear planning. If you HAVE to destroy a strategic target with an ICBM in a first strike situation so they can't counter-strike, and there's a 20% chance an intercept system is going to destroy your missile it is no longer acceptable to send one bomb at the target. You have to send enough that destruction of the target is absolutely assured.

The whole point of an intercept system is to cause any potential first strike to be more limited simply by strategic concerns in destroying the highest priority targets. Its a way to effectively reduce the size of your opponent's arsenal.

>thinking ICBMs would ever actually be used in any conflict ever

the 1960s and 70s called, they want their cold war mentality back.

seriously though, it's all about small, tactical nuclear strikes to take out defensive/offensive capabilities. no invading country wants to completely destroy the economic capability of the country their invading, let alone have to deal with long lasting nuclear fallout and cleanup.

why do you think nukes were used on nagasaki and hiroshima, instead of kyoto or tokyo? nowadays, they'd just be used on remote installations far away from civilian population centers.

>Claims of being able to shoot down ICBM'
It's mostly against mid and long range ballistic missiles, but can used against ICBM too, but not as effective

> They're not designed to shoot down hundreds of Russian ICBM's
that's exactly what they are designed for

>cos that's a scenario that's nearly certain never to happen.
full out nuclear war will happen only in that way

Both Patriot PAC3 and THAAD are kinetic, Hit To Kill weapon systems.

Don't know about the SM6 for Aegis as I am not a squids.

t. Former Air Defense Officer

i'm half-sure there's some super secret, last resort anti-nuke strategy that basically has fighter pilots kamikaze into the missiles if they were ever launched en masse at the u.s. thus, part of the reason why the u.s. wants airplanes that travel at ridiculous speeds, so the pilots can manually intercept warheads.

KGB is on your fucking ass romania

>Thinking ICBM and ICBM countermeasures are deployed to be used
That's not how it works Jamal. The purpose is geopolitical posturing. You take the unilateral first-strike possibility (unlikely as it is) off the table and all of a sudden the balance of power shifts dramatically. Never mind it's not likely to happen, if it can't happen, you negotiate from a position of greater power.

Iran doesn't have nuclear missiles though and their military is shit still using old tech, the West could easily destroy them

Is Mad THAAD real? Because I find it hard to believe Romania has somerhing the US does not.

You don't think the US has anti-ICBM equipment loaded onto subs in the North Pacific? C'mon now, as if the US came through 50 odd years of cold war and 20 years of tension with Russia completely unprepared for something like this.

If the man in Vladivostok so much as twitches in the direction of the big red button, the US will spread Russia's guts like a thin layer of butter across siberia.

>Source: My brown eye

>It can shoot down Russian ICBMs in the atmosphere.

>ICBMs leave the atmosphere

my cock is kinetic m8

After first going up through the atmosphere, and prior to coming down through... wait for it... the atmosphere.

That posture

what

missiles travel 5000+ miles an hour, especially when they do their atmospheric reentry jig

no fucking way an F22 or even an SR71 could hit one

But that's wrong. I suggest you look a bit into nuclear utilisation and target selection theory- along with the core principle of MAD. When a missile is headed your way, you cant tell if its nuclear or not or where it's going to land. Therefore planning always assumes the worst and you react as though any nuclear strike is countervalue not counterforce. Also, there is great danger in the line of thought of limited nuclear strikes-where the line runs. What is an acceptable level of enemy activity that justifies a nuke? If the enemy is willing to carry out tactical nuke attacks, is every cruise missile potentially nuclear?
As of now there sin't a single country which openly plans to initiate limited nuclear war- in this high-stakes game, it's allor nothing.
Also, Hiroshima was a valid target for bombing- an industrial city, it had hardly been bombed up to that point because it was on the safe list (the Americans wanted to save some cities for historic or other reasons). Nagasaki IIRC was bombed because Kure was under cloud cover and the crew of Bockscar were ordered not to drop unless the aimpoint was in plain sight. By that point in the war Tokyo had been 80% burned to the ground by firebombing and Kyoto was on the safe list.

Don't ICBM's go into low-orbital? How the fuck do you shoot those down?

No idiot, missiles launched from aircraft move far far far quicker than the fucking planes themselves. The real last ditch effort is the Genie.

That sounds like a great idea. Maybe if you go down to your local air force base and tell them you know all about their secret kamikaze plan, they might just recruit you straight into the project.

At which point the MIRVs have seperated, so instead of shooting down one missile you have to shoot down 5-10 warheads screened by countermeasures. Good luck.

yeah but we have fast planes like the ac-130 that can intercept

Low effort bait.

>implying russia can't just bomb you with a conventional nuke

pretty sure they don't need an ICBM when they can just fly a high altitude bomber and drop a couple nukes

See this thing?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_Program

It was a huge waste of money just like your pic. The similarity is they both don't do shit.

>going up
>way inside russia outside range

>going down
>at 7km/s

>the same missiles with a 1/8 chance of hitting with a 8 missile salvo can stop the Russian icbms
Didn't know lockeed needed to shill outside of /k/.

>implying i couldnt turn this thing to the side and shoot the icbm out of the sky

of course you can intercept them . not in that childish way to go "kamikaze" but to fire (pic related) at them.
the point is to intercept them, not to catch up
you could also intercept a 500km/h fast car with a very very slow truck (2km/h) if you know the trajectory of the fast object and just move/throw the kinetic killer (slow object) into it ( and it's trajectory)

What's stopping some sort of power to hide a nuke in a car / truck and nuke some place

To do that they'd have to fly a bomber, penetrate NATO airspace, and not get intercepted or shot down before reaching their targets. If all that happens, all hell breaks loose with ICBMs so what's the point?

detonating a nuclear device is actually pretty difficult and requires a significant impact to start it off. Even then, its pretty hard to get the ball rolling without significant testing of firing mechanisms.

>you could also intercept a 500km/h fast car with a very very slow truck (2km/h) if you know the trajectory of the fast object and just move/throw the kinetic killer (slow object) into it ( and it's trajectory)

only if they don't change the trajectory...

oh wait they can do this.
>what are marvs

Take some of custom made truck,hide a nuclear bomb in it. ALLAHU AKBAR

>Why are they doing this?

You have to stand up to Russia or they'll bully you until you don't exist.

that they are time consuming, expensive, hard to make and hard/expensive to maintain.
Honestly it would be way easier to create nerve gas that is relatively easy to produce wouldn't surprise me if ISIS had it.

*min 7km/s
usually 12 km/s
max >15km/s

russians have nothing to stop a minuteman or a trident
their s-500 just scratches on the lowest re-entry speed

That's the ASAT. designed to shoot down satellites-practically immobile in space terms (well defined and unchanging orbit). As opposed to an ICBM the trajectory of which you don't know with certainty and can change after launching the interceptor. And once the warheads have seperated you have multiple targets, with countermeasures, all maneuverable. Not feasible.

Yes it can.

What about conventional explosive detonated nukes?

>shot down a ballistic missile
>the debris still hits you
>have to evacuate cities because full of radioactive materials

>impact
Not really. Remember that nukes are 1945 cutting edge. The problem is a lot less getting nuclear material to go BOOM, more making it not go boom until you want it to. Constructing a gun type device is fairly simple and straightforward, the problem is that they are extremely inefficient.

>requires a significant impact to start it off.

thats not how nuclear warhead works anymore, all newer ones are implosion device exclusive.

Reminds me of the Maginot Line. Fast commando attack overland from the Black Sea takes it out before the ICBMs are fired.

and neither have the US.

>marvs
meme
this shit barely works and if so, they are soooo slow that every anti ICBM missile will be able to catch up
americans try to produce a functional marvs which are too fast to be intercepted but failed so far to get them down in one piece

Even the first ones werent impact fuzed, even little boy had a airburst fuze so it would destroy a greater area.

Shieee János

MIRVs. They work and have been deployed on most missiles since the 70s.

Which is why modern ICBM don't travel in a straigh line o even aim to get the missile in line with th target, the MIRV being able to independently move about.

The difficulty of hiding the radiological signal. The amount necessary even for a small bomb produces noticiable amounts of radiation and reducing it requires a very good knowledge of the engineering of the explosive lenses.

That's kind of nonsense because you have been bullying Russia for decades and decided that instead of extending the hand of friendship when they were in complete collapse you would instead plunder it until nothing was left. You could have made Russia a friend, but instead proved your claim of attacking them because they were communist was a lie.

>muh Russia failing economy

this meme has been going for almost 30 years, yet Russia still climbs and remains strong.

>soooo slow

>2.8km/s

...

> Not feasible.
that's the reason why you have far far more of these missiles than the enemy has ICBM/warheads
they are only one of multiple layers of the defence

laser
railgun

.. will be nice

brah didnt you listen to zero in the mission briefing

the governments do this shit all the time

there was probably a scientist trying to wistleblow on something bigger

like metal gear big

>2,8km/s
that is slow as fuck for a reentry vehicle

>laser
>railgun

>calls marvs meme

>Russia could fire one third of their land-based ICBMs in one salvo at Romania and it is possible although unlikely that Aegis bolstered with THAAD could shoot down every single one.
Bahahaha! Yeah okey.

I remember buying that game on a low density floppy diskette for Windows 3.1 way back in mid 90's.

>keep reading the posts
>its clear it's either trolling or stupidity.
I'm out.

These systems are there to ensure if we ever decide to initiate a first strike Russia can't shoot back user.

Which serves to force the Russians to be much more on edge in the cases of false alarms which can increase the likelihood of accidentally nuclear war

It's not feasible on cost terms. You need not only far more missiles than the enemy has warheads but also to launch them to altitude-you need a system which is always ready for action. This is far too expensive to work. Most ABM systems now are endo/exoatmospheric interceptors attempting to destroy before seperation occurs.

>Sup Forums tries to pretend they know what they're talking about

Why has he got a beard?

That's cool and all, but I guarantee you Hillary had all the info, including a way to shut it down, on her email server.

Probably at least thin out the herd of ICBM's if they were on their way to the US.

Yeah it's gonna look like that when you restart from nothing

How many border guards actually have radiological detection equipment?

China Ships, or some other country ships shit load of cars to mexico, one of these cars has a built in nuclear warhead and cannot be seen visually. Car gets into U.S,

RIP city

The CIA mi6 and even the goddamn Israeli mossad all know that Iran isn't even pursuing nuclear weapons let alone in possession of them.
Stop repeating this tired "Iran is two months away from nukes for 30 years" propaganda

both work so far, marvs not really