4 ms·
Nah, we have anti-ICBM technology but it's hilariously inadequate, as in, rate of successful interception is very low. And when you have nukes attached to the I
by enraged_camel 9y ago
Nah, we have anti-ICBM technology but it's hilariously inadequate, as in, rate of successful interception is very low. And when you have nukes attached to the ICBMs, your can't tolerate even a single one going through.
- ben_w 9y agoYou say we can't tolerate even a single one getting through, but… what would a war look like between Russia and the USA if there were no nukes? Sure, a conventional war would never be as bad as 7,000 nukes, but one? Seven? Seven hundred? I expect conventional munitions would likely be better targeted, simply out of necessity, so the difference would be smaller than the ratio of TNT-equivalents.
- gambiting 9y agoAnd then US and Russia both have MIRV systems which carry 15-20 warheads on one rocket, so if you don't intercept it in the first stage of flight it's game over anyway. And Russia recently finished developing the System-6 nuclear torpedo which can destroy possibly more land than large megaton warheads anyway, since it creates a 500m tsunami wave which travels hundreds of miles in-land destroying everything in its path. And if it's salted with cobalt then that land becomes unusable for decades.
- imaginenore 9y agoIt's Status-6, and it's not necessarily real. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyon