*blocks your nuclear arsenal* Why is the US,and by extension

>>34807098
The fear is that their alliances and NATO mutual defense clause might trigger a world war.

>>34807098
Because DOD is lying about the effectiveness of our defense missiles.

>>34807098
because the norks got away

>>34807098
none of that shit actually works

>>34807176
>>34807156
Proofs? How can that be? Why is it hard to send a missile at another missile? We've done this shit before

>>34807098
Because having nuclear weapons simply means bigger countries can't just bully you freely. Its less about whether we can defend or not and more about power balance

>>34807098
The real fear is that an ability of the US to do anything about a country that it is constantly threatening [and which in turn threatens the US right back] will accelerate the already decline of the US's position as the arbiter of everything on planet earth.

>>34807189
Lol

I provided security for a patriot missile site. The concern isn't that they can't shoot down missiles, it's that they can't shoot down the first volley because of the close proximity and required response time. So they'll intercept a couple, but when you're talking nukes/wmd a 60% success rate isn't good enough.

Now I'm just some random guy on the internet so for all you know I'm a north Korean shill; but do you honestly think the us gov would make that shit public knowledge?

>>34807189
>Why is it hard to send a missile at another missile?
It's incredibly difficult

Even more difficult is intercepting the ballistic warhead on its way back down

>muh mugic shuild will prutect me

Lolno, if 5 out of 1000 nukes hit you you're fucked, and thats extremely larped scenario

>>34807189
>Why is it hard to send a missile at another missile?
Yeah, not 100% successfully with escape / terminal velocity speeds of re-entry MIRV warheads. Honestly lasers are going to be the only chance to shoot them down, and they're not powerful enough to do the job quick enough yet.

>>34807403
The success rate of ICBM and regular missile defence systems kinda is public knowledge already, its just that the general public don't do their research and instead rely on the media for information. Kind of why general American public actually believe Russia's military is on par with the US or that a nuclear war means the end of all life on earth, glass everything you see. Or that hillary clinton mentioning the 4 minute response thing actually means shit

>>34807444
You would be spot on here, but the Norks don't even have a RV that will survive reentry, let alone have a MIRV. go against Russia, China? Ya there would be problems, but Nork missiles with 50% fail rate and no RV (yet, probably won't be too terribly long admittedly) is not nearly as big a threat as the Norks seem to think they are.

There's a reason they were 'strongly considering' striking Guam first. They have missiles that can potentially deliver a weapon without it burning up. ICBMs they have have range but not the capability yet

>>34807443
>>34807403
We are assuming the Norks have the ability to wave their ICBM strikes when its pretty widely accepted they only have a handful of primitive rocketry. These arent Jupiters or Tridents lads

File: 1501552411203.jpg (35KB, 500x456px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x456px

>>34807189
>"Why is it hard to send a missile after another missile?"
Ballistic missiles are uniquely difficult to intercept. The go all the way into fucking SPACE then come back down, are tiny, and do so at ludicrous speeds.
THAAD works by direct impact, using kinetic energy alone to destroy the target. The kill vehicle is accelerated to >2800 m/sec, 8 times the speed of the shockwave it creates as it travels through air ("speed of sound" doesn't cover the sheer complexity of aerodynamics at this kind of velocity). It needs to physically touch a thing which is itself travelling at mach 6-7+. That kind of speed causes insane surface temperatures which can only be mitigated though disposable ablative shielding. Imagine trying to design a sensor package that can detect things through that kind of noise, through the dense shielding. And a guidance computer that can plot an intercept course with that degree of precision. And a body that can actually manouvre at those speeds.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_speed
This shit is fucking hard. Literally the bleeding edge of fluid dynamics, computer science, materials science and a half dozen other fields, plus the enemy is trying to actively defeat your abm with decoys and EW.
IMO the russkies had a better idea using nuclear tipped ABM missiles but that system is more politically limited than KE.

>>34807583
Why not use an airburst type missle?
A big ass bomb that explodes in the vicinity of the icbm would have to render it useless

>>34807403
>>34807443

>muh success rate

why do people still not understand that the actual intercept success rate is fairly meaningless? Just deploying them and having a decent chance of success has a larger impact on strategic posture than their numbers imply. if you now can't be certain that a warhead will strike and destroy its target, you need to double up warheads to ensure destruction, meaning you need to pull warheads away from other targets in the process and limiting your potential targets drastically. and what targets are those that are far more important to strike than a city or comm center in the middle of an island? missile fields.

>>34807098
You literally cannot stop a mirv in its terminal phase. Lasers are being developed to stop this but we don't have nearly the number or deployability yet.

>>34807583
Should've bought Arrow 3.

>>34807583
>>34807608
Thats literally what the Sprint missile was.

>>34807098
We haven't ever had a good test of our missile defense system. It Should work but for obvious reasons we've never seen it work.

>>34807583
>>34807680
What kind of rocketry do the Norks operate? Surely not MIRVs? And if they are as militarily underdeveloped as we are lead to believe than certainly their missile sophistication is sub par and interceptable even by 1980s standards, let alone today? Or are ICBM technicalities largey memes in the grand scheme

>>34807608
As in conventional explosives? Because the shockwaves produced are travelling through the air at 1/25th the speed of the missile. Fragmentation/shrapnel are going to be caught in the shockwaves around the target. The Russian nuclear system uses small warheads designed to maximize the radiation burst to damage the incoming weapon, rather than catch them in the fireball/blast wave. But having a complex warhead means limiting the stresses put on the interceptor, ie. acceleration and speed, for reliability's sake. And you can't intercept conventional ballistic missiles with nukes for political reasons (nuking Saddam's scuds out of the sky would have done more damage to Israel than letting them land).
All this means its much harder to shoot down one warhead than to to fire one. Which means the attacker can usually saturate any defences anyway, just because cost: benefit is on his side.

>>34807732
>>34807699
I know such systems exist, it is possible of course, I was just illustrating how difficult this problem is.

Nuclear weapons don't exist that's why they won't be used, Japan was firebombed and they did the smart thing to agree to go along with the hoax because that invasion would have genocided them. Nuclear weapons were thought up to prevent another world war while nefarious forces gained absolute power.

>>34807860
Unitary warheads only, so far. But intercepting one warhead is no easier than intercepting one of several.

File: 1501880153617.jpg (22KB, 540x527px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 540x527px

>>34807899
Yup. Firebombing caused all that acute radiation sickness. The green glass at trinity that sends geiger counters wild? Totally natural.
Nuclear power plants are just fancy super coal that turns to steam when it combusts.
You fucking imbecile.

File: 1429662885594.jpg (23KB, 400x267px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x267px

>>34807948

>>34807899
Don't derail our thread with your /pol/faggotry. Unless your from /x/ then you can stay.

>>34807500
Recently vehicles are the easy part m8. Chinese used wood as a heat shield on theirs.

Why not just send people to Guam? Guam will sink if there's too much people on it.

>>34807443
NORKs don't have a thousand nukes tho...

>>34807899
>nukes don't exist conspiracy
Flat earth-tier retardation

>>34807098
Missile defense systems have far from a 100% success rate. It depends a lot on a bunch of factors.

>>34807667
Talking about the Norks here. Even if one of their nukes lands it's a disaster.
It's not about MAD with China or Russia.

>>34807860
>interceptable even by 1980s standards
What are those? Patriots failed to intercept in the 90's. Nothing was interceptable in the 80's.

>"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)

The DOD defense systems only have 50% success rate on any given test, are insanely expensive, and we have less than a tenth the number of defense missiles we need. Russia is by far the greatest nuclear power in the world by several factors.

>>34807135
Neither China nor Russia cares enough about N. Korea to get into a war with the US and NATO.

>>34807098
Of curse it's fear mongering. Dear Leader pretends to be an irrational crazy dude and the world pretends to believe him, and the media needs to sell copies. In reality, anybody with a brain knows that there isn't the slightest chance Kim will ever commit suicide by nuke.

File: image.jpg (53KB, 616x427px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 616x427px

How effective is MEADS?

>>34808788
Nobody has 99.5% intercept abms tho.
THAAD is like 50/50, and the Navy system isn't much better.

>>34807189
Rather hard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ

>>34809027
So? We are specifically talking about the NK threat, which is a hand full of single warhead misses at best right now. This isn't Russia, we can handle their shit for the time being. When they start testing MIRVs then we can be worried.

Is there any system that can counter MIRVs?

>>34807156
um..they specificaly said if the norks launch 5 missiles the chance of successfully intercepting all five falls to around 70%

>>34809102
Shoot the missile down before its warheads seperate.

File: 1501780163723.jpg (80KB, 766x960px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 766x960px

>>34809062
>>34808788
The Norks have access to enough fissile material to make 12 physics packages per year.
They also have huge stockpiles of chemical weapons of every agonizing flavour and are suspected to have a bioweapon stockpile.
And literally thousands of SRBMs, IRBMs and guns to deliver them with, and thousands of conventional ones that would act as pseudo decoys. The ABM systems would be overwhelmed.
The Nork regime was working with Saddam and they saw what his restraint from wmds got him, and they were watching while western air power de-clawed Iraq for weeks before the ground forces went in. The nukes don't exist in a vacuum.
The only way to do it would be a comprehensive pre-emptive nuclear strike, and that's not happening.

>>34809102
This
>>34809182
Or otherwise you have to shoot down all the MIRVs, which is doable but the MIRVs are cheaper than the interceptors so there will always be more missiles.

>>34808998
Not yet deployed.

>>34807098
>We have ballistic missile defense grids literally everywhere,
No we don't.
Most people are confused about what the capability of these different systems are and how they are deployed.

The reality is that the longer ranged the missile is, the faster it is going. The faster it is going, the harder it is to intercept.
With ICBMs, which are the main threat to the US, the only system that has a realistic chance of intercepting them is the GBI (Ground Based Interceptor).
THAAD, has no chance at all.

With shorter range systems, AEGIS BMD, THAAD, and Patriot systems are only effective against Short Range Ballistic Missiles, Medium Range Ballistic Missiles, and Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles.

>>34809644
It's a shame that this is the third thread you've posted this in in the last 2 days and people are still repeating misinformation.

>>34809888

C'est la vie dans /k/

File: IMG_0099.jpg (82KB, 525x344px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 525x344px

I heard the navy rail gun is being developed more for anti missile shit now rather than the original purpose of ship to ship and ship to shore.
>would a rail gun suffice as a anti ballistic missile system?

>>34808810
Are we 15 years ago? Nothing was ever improved or studied with a virtually unlimited budget?

>>34809963
I didn't catch if this was answered in the last thread Opp, but where is NK on:
Co-launched decoys?
Onboard deployable decoys?
Onboard ECM?
Terminal phase warhead maneuverability?

>>34810098
Maybe, but railgun-level acceleration tends fuck up circuitry, so no guidance or a very long development time. Any minor course adjustment on the part of the target and you will miss by literal miles.
Lasers are more promising.

>>34810172
My 2 cents:
Colaunched decoys is dependent on their ability to produce enough missiles to throw some away (or load them with non-nuclear warheads). Their limiting factor is plutonium production, so they're good on this front.
Onboard deplorable decoys, ECM and terminal stage maneuverability are much more difficult to engineer and also reduce cost effectiveness of each individual missile. Early stage nuclear powers focus on production, late stage nuclear powers (basically us and Russia) focus on refinement. Only reason for them to divert attention from mass production would be if they could only have so many weapons per a nonproliferation treaty, and since they don't care about those in the first place, it's not likely.

>>34810343
Obviously they are in the nuclear stone ages BUT this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevaline
should not be too difficult for the developmentally disabled, no?

File: 1153px-SRMSC_MSR_HAER_ND-9-B.jpg (151KB, 1153x900px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1153x900px

Friendly reminder that ABM tech has been intentionally crippled for years due to politics.

How accurate is this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WyrYBrOC1o

>>34810496
Well it assumes no cooperation from SK and Japan so you do the math.

>>34810411
Chevaline was a mixture of decoys, chaff, jamming and other shenanigans to defeat contemporary abm radar at the time. Modern radar with signal processing is going to require a near peer effort to defeat by jamming or chaff. And Chevaline was cancelled in part because there was no end in sight to the project. Decoys, chaff, jammers and the like are not as dense or aerodynamic as a MIRV.
What they could do is start off with a high altitude airburst to blackout radars.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_blackout
That is at least something that is available to them with what they have now.

>>34810704
Thank you. I was mostly wondering what the ladder of steps are to onboard missile defense.

norks nuke guam> we steam roll nork> china and or russia nuke us mainland during steamrollin > ww3

I'm calling it now