U.S. successfully intercepts I.C.B.M. #2

It was jsut a simulation.

>>127822712
Where's my friend from Uruguay? Looking for him to post his pic.

>>127822712
This is big, but this is just the easy part of ballistic missile defense. If we hit the missile on the way up in the boost phase, that's the best outcome too, but it's the easiest problem. We have to look to the future and defend against warheads, too, and that's a lot harder because each missile will carry maybe 6-12 MIRVs as well as a couple dozen decoys designed to confuse our sensors and make us shoot more shit down.

Lasers are the one obvious choice but mirrors and ablative coatings will doubtless be employed. I'm a particle beam fag myself.

>>127823145
>without citing entire books
Why not.
Don't you claim to have them? I can give you the page numbers.

>>127823646
you two faggots have to go to /soc/ and cam up to continue this faggotry

get the fuck out of here

File: mj.jpg (21KB, 600x315px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 600x315px

waiting for the South American contender

File: 5fd9.jpg (16KB, 424x501px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 424x501px

>>127822712
is M.A.D kill?

>>127823945
Don't get salty, sweetie.

File: ezgif-213560120.gif (5KB, 200x175px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x175px

>distant north korean sobbing

File: j7_V4b.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>127823289
Doesn't destroying the ICBM before the M.E.R.V seperates make having to target individual warheads on re-entry a moot point though?

>>127822712
a test... yea knowing there would be a launch of a missile ahead of time doesnt skew the results

tell you what lets do a dry run with a few subs the navy sold to south america without clearance with the pentagon. this was before they stopped having them fully stocked so they got a couple of nukes. some time between tomorrow and next year can you stop compton from getting nuked

>>127824110
He's not coming. I knew it.

>>127824400
Why would I be pissed? I either think I have a good point and he hasn't answered to me directly, or I was set on derailing and shitting all over the thread from the beginning, in which case I'd have more reasons to be laughing right now than to be pissed.

>>127824472
Yes, I refused to read it, and you refused to actually type out your argument here. I was making a point, not requesting references. If you want an argument then make an argument. If not then just comment "you should read X, I think it refutes what you said".

Why we haven't already flattened Fatty and the rest of Poverty world™ is beyond me.

File: Huge_internet_fight.jpg (53KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x338px

>>127824679
>>127824784

He made it

>not maneuvering
>no decoys or countermeasures
Wow it's fucking nothing. The US does these bullshit "tests" against barely moving targets every few years and it's still pathetic.

>>127824112
unless a secret defense network exists on the US borders/coasts which can intercept hundreds of ICBMs launched at the same time, nope.

there's still the threat of nuclear submarines with low range missiles anyways.

File: Consequences2.gif (2MB, 352x288px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 352x288px

>>127824112
If we build like 1000 of these before they developed hyper sonic nuclear capable ICBMs then MAD would be kill.

It's looking less "assured" on their end anyway.

>>127824337
Yeah but you have to think about stuff like, maybe Russia or China has a "weather satellite" which can insert warheads without an obvious synchronous launch phase. Might not be a problem yet (or maybe it is) but it will be some day. Also they will probably try some kind of shit with stealth rockets or hypersonic doodads themselves, never hurts to plan ahead.

>>127824784
Ah you showed up! YAY!.

Lube up bitch.

So lets start over. Here are my claims.

1) The Fissile Material estimates in Paper Tigers: China's Nuclear Posture are largely accurate. The science of fuel production is well understood open source knowledge and the estimates are in line with China having several hundred warheads.
Claims that China has thousands of warheads are not backed up by science.

2) The idea that China has thousands of missiles hidden away is flawed.
a. Production facilities can be monitored for incoming and outgoing material.
b. Hiding industrial facilities underground is difficult because they require large amounts of power and heat exchange, both of which are visible above ground. This is explained in great detail in the article 'The Effects of Acquiring Nuclear Weapons by Michael Cohen and Mark Bell in International Security Summer 2016 as well in Russian Nuclear Forces by Pavel Podvig.


Your move. Since you claim to have these books, show me a pic like I showed you.

File: article-2069815-0F0CE2C100000578-336_634x399.jpg (62KB, 634x399px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 634x399px

>>127825134
That is a hypothetical though. As far as reality the U.S. is the only one capable of having nukes hovering above an enemy via stealth aircraft or whatever the hell pic related is.

>>127822712
Go team! How great would it be for ballistic missiles to become obsolete? Happy to spend my taxes on this.

File: transparency.png (65KB, 621x408px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 621x408px

>>127824784
While you type up your response, I'm going to post the part of the paper I initially referenced, the one you refuse to read, the one that talks about how hard it is to hide nuclear weapons.

>>127822712
>archive.is
not clicking that
beware malware

File: 1493456135756.jpg (113KB, 993x586px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 993x586px

Bestu President already own your cyber Whitu Piggu CIA.
All you missile are belong to Kim.
Glorious DPRK forces will destroy all homosexual man GI negro and 뚱뚱한 반역자 while Trumpu choke on his cake and covfefe.

>>127825487

ballistic missiles will eject their payload that will become hypersonic to counter that development

not before lazer weapons are deployed did they be phased out

File: 50_Sur_le_pas_de_tir_On_the_launch_pad_polyus2.jpg (211KB, 678x1024px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 678x1024px

>>127825483
>That is a hypothetical though.
Well they both launch satellites, it's not a giant leap to think they'd covertly break a treaty by concealing some kind of nuclear payload. I'd do it.

Pic is the x-37b, nobody knows what it does but it's been observed changing its orbit, it can probably go where it likes within a limit.

Russia prototyped and could possibly have orbited a big ass space laser in the 80s though, that's pretty cool, but nobody knows if it works and they claim it fell into the sea ;^) so don't think about it too much. Either way we're covfefe.

File: UzaEGyw.jpg (106KB, 960x678px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 960x678px

>>127825764
If Russia got caught trying to put a nuke on an orbiting satellite it would be the Cuban missile crises all over again.

Considering they backed down then I don't see them having the balls to try it now.

File: Ground-Space_based_hybrid_laser_weapon_concept_art[1].jpg (1MB, 2416x1906px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2416x1906px

>>127825487
>How great would it be for ballistic missiles to become obsolete?
Reagan wanted to do it, had an advanced program created especially for it.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

But since he was a conservative republican the media crucified him for it.
>Historians from the Missile Defense Agency attribute the term "Star Wars" to a Washington Post article published March 24, 1983, the day after the speech, which quoted Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy describing the proposal as "reckless Star Wars schemes."[83] Some critics used that term derisively, implying it was an impractical science fiction fantasy. In addition, the American media's liberal use of the moniker (despite President Reagan's request that they use the program's official name) did much to damage the program's credibility.[84] In comments to the media on March 7, 1986, Acting Deputy Director of SDIO, Dr. Gerold Yonas, described the name "Star Wars" as an important tool for Soviet disinformation and asserted that the nickname gave an entirely wrong impression of SDI.[85]

>Most of the Kennedys are dead
THANK YOU, JESUS. FINISH THE JOB!

>>127826165
>got caught
yes but the trick with covert activities is to not get caught

maybe some day we will have radiometers sensitive enough to inspect orbiting satellites, but look out for traps

>>127824784
So I'm not sure if you are coming back, and I am getting tired, here is some reading material for you pertaining to the detection of underground facilities.

The methods discussed in these pages blow a massive hole in your theory that China has thousands of missiles and warheads hidden away in secret underground facilities.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB372/docs/Underground-GoingDeep.pdf
Using gravimetrics to search for deeply buried facilities.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB372/docs/Document12.pdf
Using ultra sensitive detectors to image underground facilities using the noises generated inside of them.
This makes it even more unlikely that the Chinese have hidden underground industrial facilities because the sound and movement of these industrial facilties would give them away.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB372/docs/Underground-JASON.pdf
Overview of most methods.

>>127822712
>Pentagon
>confirmed

>>127826926
If it wasn't true every government with the capability to track ICBM's would be calling bullshit.

>>127824337
There's got to be a joke about R2-D2 racemixing with an A-10 in that gif somewhere, but I'm not /pol/ or /k/ enough to tell it.

File: USS Iowa pentagon grouping.gif (20KB, 938x575px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 938x575px

>>127822712
>"Over an hour later, the Pentagon confirmed that it had collided with an ICBM-class target over the Pacific Ocean."
>Absolutely no reference to the interceptor missile prior
They make it sound like the Pentagon itself blasted off from the Potomac, flew across the US to the Pacific Ocean and physically bashed the ICBM out of the sky.

>>127823289
Is it at all practical to shoot a MIRV during re-entry with anything? sure lasers are fast but you would need a targeting system so accurate it could shoot a bullet with another, smaller bullet, a smidge harder than point defence shooting down mortar rounds.

>>127826926
>butthurt ruskie

>>127826272
It was pretty impractical in the 80s lad

>>127824112
No. They managed to destroy a very basic ICBM. Modern Russian ICBMs have randomized maneuvering, decoy targets and heat traps.

It only means they would be able to destroy a single North Korea-tier potato ICBM.

>>127829130
>calls american millitary tech shit, because usually it's shit
>lol you are butthurt!
F-117 says hello