There's a thread that might interest you.
ANd how do you suggest to reach a treaty treaty between USA, Russia, China and EU? For example; Russia stated long ago that it is not interested in limitation treaties that would not include French and British nuclear weapons also, since they put Russia in disadvantage. Since France would not surrender its warheads for sure, then what? USA should agree to reduce the number of American warhead proportionally to the number of French? Or NATO should be dissolved and American and European warheads counted separatedly, not as allied forces? Or North Korean warheads should be counted also, since Russia and North Korea have an official mutual defense treaty now? What to do with Israel, which didn't even admit it have nukes, far less how many they have? Israel is US ally, after all.
Perhaps even a Golden Shower Con-Dome...
Indeed, the dome will be over the other country.Raining down golden interceptors.
If you can't understand guard patrol routes, I can't help you.
Yep. The only hope now for defenders is from directed energy weapons
Dude chill it was announced four month ago.
It is "easiest" to build a dead-man trigger rigged to 450 ICBMs that would plaster every inch of soil across the globe with radiation.
Not to mention that they aren't even 100% effective against slow as dog turd drones never mind Mach 20+ RVs.
Our missile silos will be bearing the brunt of the damage in a nuclear attack.
At Mach 20, any shrapnel becomes *more* not less damaging.
The missile silos would be empty by the time the nuclear attack arrives. So you'd be protecting a silo that's 99.9% likely to be empty whilst all your cities and other land-based military facilities get reduced to ash.
But the time window for effect is >100x shorter, plus you'd need to keep all these rockets in sturdy silos too, otherwise a single airburst takes out all your rockets. Plus your radar timing their launch would be gone anyway, so that would make these short-range rockets utterly useless whether silo'd or not because they can be neutralised by an airburst from outside their effective range. Hence why this type of defence has been completely abandoned.
What I'm hearing is this would require the enemy to aim multiple warheads at each silo, which is a good thing.
Its the concept of silo protection. Silo is hardened target, and required nuke to hit very close to destroy it. So the warhead potential trajectories toward silo are very limited, and could be easily saturated with enough shrapnel.
Its not so simple. Launch-on-warning doctrine caused many concerns during Cold War, sjnce it left very little time to evaluate the attack (determine the perpetuator, the goals, the scale) and made correct decisions.
The OODA net now has at arms thousands of overlapping multispectral sensors for cross reference. It's doubtful that the US even practice LUA anymore, most of the silo reinforcement came from an ancient time when there were sensible people holding doubts about the reliability of early electronics that get deceived by natural causes easily.
According to other sources they closed program in1990s due to lack of proper computing power. I assume silo dispersion is also an issue as you need to have at least one radar maybe more for final MIRV acquisition and engagement. Then MARVs coming into picture. Costly game with doubtful results.
Only if there's one radar for every single silo. In a pre-emptive strike scenario there is bound to be more than one warhead per silo anyway, simply because you can't guarantee that every single warhead, or even every single missile, would work. Apart from that fragmentation alone has proven very difficult to time even against much slower missiles, e.g. PAC-2 is less effective than PAC-3, S-400s struggling not to get killed by ATACMs. The chances of this system stopping an ICBM warhead is somewhere between very little and nil and it leaves all your cities to be turned into ash with a single warhead. You also only get one chance with this system, fail and you're toast, but if I miss an endoatmospheric intercept of the boost vehicle, then I still have options.
There is no realistic way to defend our cities with current technology. ABMs are too expensive and lasers are a ways out. And attacks on our missile silos will be the source of almost all radioactive fallout, so in that sense, defending our silos is defending our cities
In what scenario would China or Russia nuke our cities and leave 400 nuclear missiles intact to retaliate?
The beauty of the debris cloud method is that the speed at which the target is traveling is turned into an advantage. At Mach 20, even the smallest piece of debris will be highly destructive.
If they are nuking our cities, those silos will be empty by the time the missiles hit. Silos are not easy targets either, you need high-yield accurate RVs or multiple ones. If you are hitting the silos + launch control centers, that's 1,000 heavy warheads not hitting something else.
Orbiting interceptors and space-based lasers could change the equation. Lasers LOVE vacuum, you know.
Orbiting interceptors can be shot down for far less than they can be put up
And what? The attackers are just left alone and hustle?
It's not something I want to pin the defense of the country on.
You wouldn't... Again, Iron Dome is not "space based interceptors", it's "ground based and space based and lasers if possible". It's just the catch all plan for total defense.
Starlink-sized interceptors suggest otherwise.
I'm guessing 5-10 years.
First it was Smart Rocks, then Brilliant Pebbles. Will the update be called Galaxy-Brained Sand?
