What kind of antimissle system does the US have

a reply to: intrptr

Yeah I understand, was just curious myself. It is a scary and frightening thought about the narrative being displayed about how effective our missile shield is.

I appreciate the clips on the cruise missiles being launched, that was impressive.

a reply to: Arnie123

It is a scary and frightening thought about the narrative being displayed about how effective our missile shield is.

There is no defense against an all out attack. Especially a sneaky one (the most probable scenario). Take heart though, the controllers don't really want to destroy everything they worked so hard to build, mass consumerism in cities are their favorite gravy train.

a reply to: Arnie123

It's improved a lot in recent years, but it's nowhere near as good as people think it is. The last test was GM CTV-02 in January of last year. It was designed as a non-intercept test to evaluate alternate divert thrusters. One of the thrusters failed during the test, and the KV passed the target 20 times farther away than planned. The last kill test was FTG-06b in 2014. It met the objectives of -06a, which tested SBX improvements after problems cropped up with the radar system.

Somewhere just over 50% of the hit to kill tests have succeeded. The system will work against limited threats, according to the DOT&E report. Someone like North Korea, that would have limited ICBM capabilities would probably be stopped. Someone with full up ICBMs, capable of terminal avoidance maneuvers, and using advanced decoys would almost certainly get through.

a reply to: Zaphod58

At the very least, these kinds of things are being continously developed and perfected.

Question, how do other countries stack against us in defense as well? Lets say Russia and china?






***I'm sorry, I'm so anti-chinese that I don't give them the courtesy of a capital "C", I apologize in advanced for this bias of mine.

a reply to: Arnie123

Russia went for killing them in the terminal phase instead of the midcourse phase like we did. Their S300VM/VMK is supposed to be capable of stopping a medium range missile, at up to about Mach 13. The S400 can stop a longer ranged missile up to almost Mach 15. Not quite ICBM speeds, but with a little tweaking and some luck, they could probably hit an ICBM inbound with one. The S500 that is in development is planned to stop missiles up to around Mach 21, as high as 120 miles. It will also work against normal aircraft and missiles as well.

China has S300s, and their HQ-9, that is similar to the Patriot and S300. They have other missiles in development as well. The HQ-9 has limited antimissile capability, but the other missiles in development will improve on that.

a reply to: Zaphod58

This is interesting. Hopefully with the increased budget to the military we can improve in these areas and also some long overdue maintenance.

Is it me, or does it always have to be complicated? I mean, intercepting something small and at high speed with something equally small and fast?

originally posted by: therealfreeworld

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee

The USA has no defence for ICBM's.

How do you know?
But, apart from that, where did the OP mention ICBMs?

No one has an effective defence system against ICBM's, they're travelling at 16,000 mph.

Nuclear warheads headed towards the USA aren't coming from Canada or Mexico, they would be ICBM's from Russia or China.

You forgot about NK, israhel, pakistan ans the countries they candupply to, and then the one i think is mist likely a nuclear attack in usa by usa. That will most probably be a stolen nuke or a rouque person or organisation

Those countries do not have the capability to launch a missile from their own country and hit the USA. They would have to get a missile much closer to the borders as they do not have ICBM's.

originally posted by: MacK80
a reply to: chr0naut

You're kidding yourself if you think America's would lose. This is why it's a bad idea to even converse Nuclear Weapons with the country that invented them.

Of course America would loose. Everyone would. Nuclear war would escalate and sterilize the planet. That is what 'mutual assured destruction' means.

The idea is; that someone who knows that it will cause the death of everyone, including themselves, is unlikely to 'push the button', however if they were to think they might possibly win, then that deterrent is rendered void, isn't it?

The fact that you, and others, can conceive that there could be a winner, is chillingly, and dangerously ignorant.

I also doubt that the fast neutrons will respect "the country that invented" nuclear weapons (it was actually my country, New Zealand, and Poland that 'invented' the science, you guys were just the most cashed-up and first to test).

Your country is also the only one who has used nuclear weapons against a civilian population with no defence against atomics - and you did it twice. Hey, my country is an ally of the US, but you guys are evil.

We're substantially cushy on many other things, that's the only reason people are even allowed to have Nuke other than us.

Um, every other nuclear armed country has developed its own nuclear weapons. They aren't 'granted' by the United States.

There have been many attempts, by many nations, to prevent the independent development of nuclear weapons (proliferation), these failed. The current nuclear status of North Korea being the latest failure in non-proliferation. I'm pretty sure that N. Korea's bomb wasn't given to it.

Also if Russia launched that many warheads, America would use a 'blow up the whole planet' bomb. The only reason America has nukes is a deterrent, and they're moving onto bigger things.

America doesn't have a 'blow up the planet' bomb. However, Russia probably does. It is called Systema "Perimetr" and will automatically launch all of Russia's nuclear weapons all at once, against the US, if communications with certain Russian military and political command centres are cut off and there are detections of nuclear detonations. America's similar "dead hand" system, ERCS, was decommissioned in 1991.

a reply to: Arnie123

Like with everything else, every time you come up with an improved system, the other side improves their system, and you have to counter the counter, which then comes up with another counter, and so forth and so on.

originally posted by: MacK80
a reply to: D8Tee

I don't see why Russia couldn't be coming from both ways.

Don't know what you mean.

a reply to: D8Tee

ICBMs, and shorter ranged missiles, instead of just one or the other.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: D8Tee

ICBMs, and shorter ranged missiles, instead of just one or the other.

Missiles launched from subs?

a reply to: D8Tee

Subs and or aircraft. They have quite a few air launched cruise missiles that are pretty good missiles, and nuclear capable.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: D8Tee

Subs and or aircraft. They have quite a few air launched cruise missiles that are pretty good missiles, and nuclear capable.

What became of Reagans plans for a star wars defence?

a reply to: D8Tee

It became ridiculously expensive, and proved extremely difficult to make work. And the space weapons treaty bans nuclear weapons in space, which technically banned the laser system they wanted to use among other systems.

a reply to: Aliensun

First of all I'm a hard core died in the wool been at it way back from way back conspiracy theorist, basement mad scientist, and aficionado of all things military technology and military dirty deeds/secret squirrel R&D type and I'm here to say put down the persecution complex since you have absolutely no justification for having it!

Your posts get universally called weak sauce, borderline delusional, and indicative of someone who has only the most tenuous grasp of junior high school level science because that's what they are.

The sheer difficulty and engineering hurdles such systems would face are mind numbing...

Undoubtedly a limited strike by say Pakistan or India would likely be pretty survivable, but if the big kids start slinging because it appears to be use it or lose it... Potential extinction level event for huge portions of the earth.

Though, you should also note that "nuclear winter" is based on data every bit as rigorously fudged as the hockey stick graph.

a reply to: roguetechie

Though, you should also note that "nuclear winter" is based on data every bit as rigorously fudged as the hockey stick graph.

Upon what data is the idea of a "nuclear winter" based?
Is there historical data of a massive nuclear exchange which was used, but "fudged?"

a reply to: MacK80

No "the right" is no such thing, and MAD has actually worked out frighteningly well for the industrialized world. Major conflicts are down from where they were in the preMAD world...

I don't like this anymore than anyone who isn't a psychopath does, but for some completely stupid reason MAD seems to kinda work.

I wish that logic and empathy for fellow humans and having no desire to vaporize a million or two lucky ones and leave another 2+ million to die horrific deaths should be impetus enough for people not to even consider it.

a reply to: Phage

I read a really good article on it, that got down and dirty with the math to a degree that was... Humbling.

It also was not a fringe media outlet either, but alas I did not save the link.

This isn't to say that I'm in favor of nuclear weapons use if we think we can win... They scare the crap out of me frankly.

I've used up several birthday wishes asking the pantheon of potential deities to keep anyone from pushing the big red cartoon button.

a reply to: roguetechie

You don't seem to understand my question. The "hockey stick" which you refer to is based on historical data (which you say is fudged). You compared it to the nuclear winter scenario. I asked which nuclear exchange data was used.


To be more explicit, you compared apples to oranges. So to speak.