Nork missles

>>34817205
"we"

you couldn't intercept pussy if it was flying at you in ballistic trajectory

>>34817205
For the third time in the last 24 hours what kind of missile are we talking about here. Use the catalog damnit

>>34817214
I mean the US

>>34817226
"us"

look, i am not gay

>>34817225
ICBM

File: 1466370814825.jpg (41KB, 600x746px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x746px

>>34817214
>ballistic trajectory pussy

Pic related there, Iron Dome, is designed around intercepting tactical rockets (and aircraft in a secondary role). It's very good in that role but not so much for intercepting long-range ballistic missiles

Israel has david's sling and Patriot's to intercept MRBM's and the Arrow system to intercept ICBM's.

US has the THAAD and SM-3/6 able to intercept Nork ICBM's.

If USA could, would North Korea still exist?

File: 141227050222.jpg (176KB, 800x511px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 800x511px

>>34817214
Put me in the cap

Then again, why would they. If they dont get hit, they dont have the same mindset in people who are to go to war.
If they hit San Francisco or LA, what of value would be lost?
Would you shoot it down if you could if you knew how many degenerates you will protect?
These are weird questions because nobody thinks about it

File: 1432984186131.jpg (43KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x375px

>>34817214

>>34817205
Ya 50/50 chance

File: p6rveqcvrj0n0g9plu1v.gif (821KB, 177x195px) Image search: [Google]

821KB, 177x195px

>>34817214

File: 1501192288081.gif (1MB, 500x210px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x210px

>>34817214
Include me in the screencap

Probably not

>>34817752
Most governments, including that of the US, value the lives of their citizens so yes, they would shoot it down if it was going to hit a populated area.