ICBM LOVE THREAD!!!!! >>>>in this thread you must

ICBMs live in the basement, like most of the people here.

>>33190947
They are the ultimate removal tools. So ultimate in fact that they will end a good chunk of the life on the planet if ever launched against another nation.

>>33190947
That's the biggest door stop I've ever seen.

>>33191371

Fthwpwppwpwppwppppwppwpwpwpwppppp

>>33191087
MIRVs are pretty neat in general.

>>33191087
Is this a long-exposure photo?

File: Peacekeeper.jpg (1MB, 2982x1673px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2982x1673px

>>33190947
>>33191087
>>33191436
mirvs are one of the coolest things ever. puts the fear of God in you. each warhead has a circular error probable of like 300 meters, and that's 1960s tech.
>>33192017
yes, but probably not very long

>>33190947
Most of the door are broken and held open by spanners and the like, shows how little concern the crews have for an actual nuclear war

File: rwfmASd.jpg (111KB, 1000x871px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1000x871px

Eggsbloshun

>>33190947
what do you think is in those lockers next to the blast door?

>>33192149
It's a shame Obummer scrapped all of the US's MIRV's from the arsenal.

>>33196496
probs cheetos and mountain dew

>>33192149
>>33191087
are those coming in or going out?

>>33196468
I'm gonna explode inside Megumin

File: 1479970994846.jpg (48KB, 600x380px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x380px

>>33192149

This is gonna sound gay as fuck but this is one of the best pictures that shows how far humanity's made it. Think of the ancients telling tales of Zeus throwing his bolts of lightning from the top of Mount Olympus.

Then look at that, and realize whatever they imagined came nowhere close.

>>33196545
The US uses MIRV's on its survivable missiles, the SLBMs.

The only reasons to put MIRVs on ICBMs are if there is no warhead limit or you cant afford to build enough single warhead ICBMs and SLBMs.

The role of the ICBM is to act as a warhead sink.Even with launch-on-warning it is probably going to get destroyed in the opening strike before it can launch. This makes the number of missiles, not the number of warheads, the important number.

>>33197607

>Even with launch-on-warning it is probably going to get destroyed in the opening strike before it can launch.

Really? How long do they take to launch?

>>33197528
love it!

>>33197650
Probably not the technical limit of rocket launch time, but the softer limits of human decision-making by command/control.

>>33197528
everything created is imagined

>>33197650
IBCM flight time from Russia is 20 min, can get as low a 5 min for SLBMs.

During that time the US has to:
>Detect the launch
>Validate warnings.
>Alert the civilian crisis coordinator (not the president).
>Brief president.
>Have the president made a decision to retaliate.
>Transmit and receive orders.
>Authenticate launch orders
>Go through the launch process

Even when some of those steps only take one or two minutes their are a lot of them and if the president takes more then a couple of minutes to decide on a response or something causes a delay (say SLBM impacts) then the ICBMs die on the ground.

Having ICBMs launch requires everything to go right, which is not likely.

There is a timeline here
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/launch-under-attack-feasible/

>>33197337
icbm comes out of the silo in one piece, launches a number of warheads above the target(s), so going out.
MIRV: multiple independent re-entry vehicles
>>33197528
good metaphor. we am become death
>>33197869
everything imaginable has been created by lockheed martin
we had these in the 90s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBMU6l6GsdM