So on the off chance nukes came flying at us on the west coast,

>>31925949
One or two? Sure.

The US has about 30-45 big boy GMDs, split up between the artic and the west coast.

>>31925949
We have enough to defend all but California, because fuck them.

>>31925955
>>31925949

Not to mention the defenses we are not even briefed on.

If a nuke makes it to the US then it was because someone in power wanted it to.

>>31925949
Keeping the production speed of like SM-6 in mind and that most of them are in Europe and on ships you'd probably be better off on the other coast

>>31925969

Odd since the west coast would be the primary target

LA, Seattle, Vegas Has Mcarran airforce base, arizona etc

>>31925961
More likly you got out teched.

America is not the pinackel of technology. As hard as hollywood wants you to belive it.

>>31925949
Just duck and cover, and you will be fine.

>>31925961

or because someone launched enough ballistic missiles to overwhelm the defenses, or because some other method was used for delivery (cruise missiles from a submarine or bomber, SLBMs launched on depressed trajectories, etc).

The norks can't even manage to get the handful of missiles they have to work reliably, so I wouldn't be too worried about them, but the Chinese, Russians, or anybody else with a serious nuclear program isn't going to be stopped by missile defenses.

>>31925977
But the west coast would probably be better prepared for incoming missiles. The best place is the one that is the farest from any missile silos

>>31925982
Chinese could be stopped, being that they work off of minimum deterrence and keep nuclear components separated for security measures.

>>31925959
I would say fuck you because I live in California, but then I remember I would gladly die if it meant this shit blue state also died. So I'm just here with your daily reminder that democrats aren't real people.

>>31925949

Las vegas would be a primary target because of Nellis and the dam, but it would also be the most well protected area out of the whole west coast save seattle

File: 1385010597976.png (466KB, 1011x1316px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 1011x1316px

>>31925959

>>31925949
>Are we far along enough to shoot them down?
Yes

>Do we have defenses for ICBMS?
Yes. Probably a dozen at best

>>31925977
For the DPRK, primary target would likely be urban areas.

>>31925969
The GBI's are in Alaska and California.

>>31927763
Norks would be far better off trying to smuggle in a suitcase than launch a missile that has a much higher failure risk knowing them. I wouldn't trust their missiles to reliably make it to Hokkaido, much less LA.

>>31928489
Can't make one that fits in a suitcase

File: Screen-324337.jpg (24KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x300px

>>31928489
I'm more worried about the snuke in Hillary's snatch

File: c3a.jpg (563KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 1200x800px

>>31925955
We have a 3 tier system to include ones that intercept in space, which is what anon is referencing here. We have 4 in CA and 24 in Alaska, with more otw in 2017.

Also, we have the short/medium range Patriot missiles. Tons of those.

Now, we have ship (and maybe sub) launched medium to inner orbit range anti-missiles on a classified # of ships.

Patriots are everywhere and plentiful as they are the main defense against multiple nuke capable ICBMs, and if a fuck ton of these are launched, you will need the patriots to get the individual nukes that the other systems couldn't shoot down.

>>31931796
>(and maybe sub)
No.

> a classified # of ships.
There are 33 BMD capable Aegis ships.

>Patriots are everywhere and plentiful as they are the main defense against multiple nuke capable ICBMs
Never post again. PAC-3 is intended for theater ballistic missiles, not ICBM, and they are certainly not "everywhere" in the United States.