What's the point of having 1,000 of these trillion dollar

File: 1479449091268.jpg (376KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1024x1024px

>>2037481
>compromising multi-layer AAA and fighter/interceptor core is easy for a big unresponsive aircraft

there´s something called political costs

>>2037481
Because planes are limited in what they can carry, how far they can go, how fast they can get there and are easier to destroy before they deliver their payload making them a poor deterrent against a foe who has the capacity to launch an overwhelming number of ICBMs.

>>2037506

What's the difference?

>>2037511

So can't you just have enough anti-missiles to stop those ICBMs and then launch your bomber force?

>>2037701

New to the thread, but you can't stop an ICBM, not with current technology.

They're not electronically guided, so you can't jam them. They're guided by physically calculating how much propellant you need to shoot in an arch to hit whatever it is you want to blow up, and then just launching them.

So over their country, a missile comes out of a silo. It ascends into the air, goes laterally a bit, and then starts dropping into freefall.

By the time it's back within radar range, you've got 6-8 seconds before it explodes. No countermissile can work that fast, and as mentioned above, there's no electronics to jam.

>>2037701

Now would be a good time to give up on this thread and go find a book at the library on this subject because you seem to know nothing about air tactics or the capabilities of missiles.

>>2037481
Missiles are more phallic-looking therefore patriarchial generality prefer to stock up with them to compensate for small phallae of the generals.

>>2037725

I don't understand, so why does the US build missiles for IBCM defence?

>>2037734

This is why I'm asking.

>>2037824
>I don't understand, so why does the US build missiles for IBCM defence?
To increase their odds.

ICBM defenses don't work on binary can intercept/can't intercept basis but rather on low percentages of succes that are increased by launching multiple counter-missiles.

The defenses also force Reds to fire their missiles in lower orbit at higher speeds to decrease the chance of interception, while decreasing reliability/accurancy and increasing price.

If you are more interested on the subject, I reccomend visiting /k/.

>>2037824

>I don't understand, so why does the US build missiles for IBCM defence?

The US navy has the capability to shoot down some types of ballistic missiles.

>>2037824
Also, modern missiles can deliver multiple payloads. When every incoming missile splits in 20, it doesn't matter how many antimissiles you have, it's not enough.