Why is this allowed?

>>78354389
t. Zhang

>>78354389
>100% track record

lamao, against a single missile in perfect weather yes

>>78354389
Its allowed because american owns the world.

>>78354389
THAAD can only stop maybe a dozen missiles at once. Russia or the US or even the UK or France could overwhelm such systems

Its made to stop one or two like from Iran or the Norks or a half hearted attack on a military base by the Chinese. Big boy countries can easily ignore a system like that.

>>78354389
China is developing hypersonic missiles which will render THAAD obsolete when deployed.
How will the US feel when it has no missile defense?

>>78355233
>>78354389
Does anyone else find it slightly nauseating how chink diaspora will live in Canada and Australia for 2-3 generations, have never even set foot in China, yet continue to shill blatant CCP propaganda? It's not that they're simply defending their country of origin, but have to literally defend a government.

>>78354389
>How would Americans feel if China were to install such a missile system in Canada? There is no good endgame from Mr. Trump's continued attempts to fan the flames of war in East Asia
We wouldn't care because it's a defensive system.

>>78355233
thaad provides no defense against ICBM's.

only the GMD can stop ICBM's and it has a 10/19 success rate. mind you, this success rate is based on a perfect known scenario so it's likely to be far lower in a real life scenario.

no world power has anything to fear from missile defense, yet.

>>78355568
It's a third world thing, you see it quite commonly in Somalis, Pakistanis, Albanians, etc.

>>78355605
Do you know how MAD works?
If you lose the ability of a second strike, you are completely vulnerable to nuclear attack

>>78355648
It's an anti-ballistic missile system, so why wouldn't it?

>>78355888
it was never designed to work against ICBM's and never tested against it. if the US were to use THAAD as it's main line of defense against ICBM's they'd essentially be betting on a scenario that has never been tested before.

why they've never tested it before? dunno seems like a really big oversight or they aren't confidant it could stop a ICBM.

>>78355568
yup

Now, the thing is that China is butthurt mainly because THAAD's radar covers some of their territory while their own radar covers the entire Korean peninsula.

>>78356832
nah dude, the problem is THAAD covers a lot of area in China where they do their weapons testing and training. so while China can see all of SK, the US doesn't put any sensitive assets in SK, so China can't do the same to them.

the Americans say they won't use it for espionage but China doesn't believe them.

>>78354389
You have to go back, Xiang.

THAAD is ostensibly to guard against North Korean missiles.

>>78355837
>Do you know how MAD works?
>If you lose the ability of a second strike, you are completely vulnerable to nuclear attack
We couldn't stop Russia. However, piss ants like NK and Iran are what it's really meant for.

>be North Korea
>threaten to launch all my missiles
>launch them but instead just launch duds
>laugh at the allies wasting all their rockets
>fire real rockets
>win war

>>78358617
>We couldn't stop Russia
I wouldn't be all that concerned about their 1980s missiles.

>>78359171
why's that? a ICBM from the 1980's is still as effective today as it was then. the GMD isn't near reliable enough to stop MAD from Russia.

>>78359355
>a ICBM from the 1980's is still as effective today

The Titan II was quite hopelessly obsolete by the 1980s and it was 15-20 years old at that time, it wouldn't have stood up to Soviet ICBMs of the period, also as the missiles aged, they suffered from rotting seals and fuel leaks which led to episodes like the 1980 Arkansas silo explosion. They were supposed to have been retired by at least the early 70s.

So that's an example of how the effectiveness of an aging missile system decreases, and not to mention how the United States did not experience a massive socioeconomic collapse and loss of skilled tech personnel as Russia did in the 90s.

>>78359697
K, that's one missile, what about the other variants and types held by Russia and America? even if a small number of them did not age well, some missiles do, like the R-36 which is still in use today.

>>78359926
R-36 is being retired from use since the factory was in Ukraine and it's also ancient, in fact the thing dates back to 1963, it's literally a Titan II contemporary.

>>78359982
yeah but they had no problems until they were retired. they were just as effective today as they were then. there has been no notable technological leap that would render a missile from the 1980's ineffective in a conflict today. missile defense is the only thing that can neutralize a ICBM launch, and today's tech isn't good enough.

>>78360162
>and today's tech isn't good enough
I'm sure it's good enough to take down 40 year old missiles, you dumb CCP bot. Assuming the things even fly if launched.

>>78359926
>R-36 which is still in use today
it's not
R36M is and it's a relatively modern comparing to rusty american minutemans

>>78354544
this

File: 1473701811403.jpg (55KB, 500x473px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x473px

>>78364807
wait how does a Russian know anything about American minutemans?

File: 1491725871173.jpg (114KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1280x720px

>>78364934
oh wait i don't know nothing leave me alone