3 ms·

The US has at least 799 operational THAAD interceptors. Source: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12645/2 https://crsreports.congress.gov/produc

The US has at least 799 operational THAAD interceptors. Source: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12645/2 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12645/2 56 Aegis BMD equipped ships. Source: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL33745.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL33745.pdf Japan also has 8 equipped ships. Operational land-based Aegis BMD sites in Poland, Romania and the US. Given how well Russian technology has performed in Ukraine versus American technology, I'd put money on American tech. I'd also put money on the US having systems that aren't public knowledge. Russia's sabre rattling has grown increasingly unhinged and frequent which suggests they feel the same way. Edit - should mention, it's thought that Russia has ~300 operational ICBMs. Also, I don't think our systems would be 100% effective. But I think they'd be effective enough that the US would survive.

dividedbyzero 2y ago
So let's say the US could shoot down everything Russia throws at them, could tell apart all of the decoys, intercept every single MIRV warhead and take out every other secret weapon Russia may have deployed. It doesn't take many hits to take out a big chunk of the US population and wipe out its economy, so that would have to be done at 100% success rate over large parts of the country. Europe cannot do anything remotely like that, so close to everything west of the Ural would burn and pretty much everyone there would die, hundreds of millions of dead and God knows how many more further to the east. The soot from burning cities and forests would darken the whole northern hemisphere for several growing seasons, large parts of the US population would probably just freeze or starve, more so if the US has been hit as well. And that leaves out fallout dispersal, especially from the inventories of nuclear power plants hit with nukes and so on. There simply is no winning an all-out nuclear war.
- dismalaf 2y ago
  > The soot from burning cities and forests would darken the whole northern hemisphere for several growing seasons There's already been over 2000 nuclear warhead detonations and nothing remotely like that has happened. In fact, the fallout isn't noticeable at all. Granted, the tests were in remote locations, but all the planetary effects people worry about haven't happened at all. > Europe cannot do anything remotely like that Several European nations do have missiles capable of taking out ICBMs, on top of US Aegis sites, seaborne Aegis sites, Patriot batteries, etc... > There simply is no winning an all-out nuclear war Depends on what you consider winning. I agree it's bad. But equally bad is allowing dictatorships to do whatever they want because they have nukes. Which is where we're at. One day it's Ukraine, the next it's Lithuania, then it's Romania, Finland or Poland. Or maybe Taiwan. Then Japan. And so on. Where do we draw the line?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > already been over 2000 nuclear warhead detonations and nothing remotely like that has happened They said "soot from burning cities and forests." Nothing about fallout.
    - dismalaf 2y ago
      This hits a lil closer to home. This summer I lost my home when half our town burnt down in a 32,000 hectare forest fire. The other half is untouched and there's not even soot on the town, nevermind into the atmosphere. Massive amounts of boreal forest burn yearly. So their scenario is pure speculation with zero basis in reality.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Massive amounts of boreal forest burn yearly. So their scenario is pure speculation with zero basis in reality. It's speculation shared by nuclear and climate scientists.
        dismalaf 2y ago
        15 million hectares burned in Canada alone in 2023. We average over 2 million hectares of burnt forest per year. Some quick maths. 15 million ha is 150,000km2. Tsar Bomba blast area was 16km2. It would take over 9000 Tsar Bombas to burn as much forest as only Canada's 2023 forest fire season. Maybe provide some source for your assertion...
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Tsar Bomba blast area was 16km2. It would take over 9000 Tsar Bombas to burn as much forest as only Canada's 2023 forest fire season The fire burns beyond the blast area. Also, urban fires produce > Maybe provide some source for your assertion Sure [1][2]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219184/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219184/ [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00794-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00794-y
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Given how well Russian technology has performed in Ukraine versus American technology, I'd put money on American tech Capable of carrying 1,185 warheads. Plus decoys. The “T” in THAAD stands for terminal. That means the warheads and decoys must be targeted separately. We’d need thousands of THAAD interceptors to even begin to feel comfortable about surviving, as a republic, a Russian nuclear exchange. (To say nothing of such an exchange immediately leaving us intensely vulnerable to China.) Our missile defences protect against rogue nuclear states. North Korea. Some day, Iran. They are not intended to defeat MAD.
- dismalaf 2y ago
  > The “T” in THAAD stands for terminal. Yes. Terminal means the downward phase of a ballistic missile's flight. THAAD can target them before they reenter the atmosphere. That's the point. And other BMD systems are designed to target them in the earlier phases of flight.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > THAAD can target them before they reenter the atmosphere Not relevant. They've already separated. That means you have to count warheads and decoys, not missiles.
openasocket 2y ago
THAAD cannot intercept ICBMs…

dividedbyzero 2y ago

So let's say the US could shoot down everything Russia throws at them, could tell apart all of the decoys, intercept every single MIRV warhead and take out every other secret weapon Russia may have deployed. It doesn't take many hits to take out a big chunk of the US population and wipe out its economy, so that would have to be done at 100% success rate over large parts of the country. Europe cannot do anything remotely like that, so close to everything west of the Ural would burn and pretty much everyone there would die, hundreds of millions of dead and God knows how many more further to the east. The soot from burning cities and forests would darken the whole northern hemisphere for several growing seasons, large parts of the US population would probably just freeze or starve, more so if the US has been hit as well. And that leaves out fallout dispersal, especially from the inventories of nuclear power plants hit with nukes and so on. There simply is no winning an all-out nuclear war.

dismalaf 2y ago
> The soot from burning cities and forests would darken the whole northern hemisphere for several growing seasons There's already been over 2000 nuclear warhead detonations and nothing remotely like that has happened. In fact, the fallout isn't noticeable at all. Granted, the tests were in remote locations, but all the planetary effects people worry about haven't happened at all. > Europe cannot do anything remotely like that Several European nations do have missiles capable of taking out ICBMs, on top of US Aegis sites, seaborne Aegis sites, Patriot batteries, etc... > There simply is no winning an all-out nuclear war Depends on what you consider winning. I agree it's bad. But equally bad is allowing dictatorships to do whatever they want because they have nukes. Which is where we're at. One day it's Ukraine, the next it's Lithuania, then it's Romania, Finland or Poland. Or maybe Taiwan. Then Japan. And so on. Where do we draw the line?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > already been over 2000 nuclear warhead detonations and nothing remotely like that has happened They said "soot from burning cities and forests." Nothing about fallout.
  - dismalaf 2y ago
    This hits a lil closer to home. This summer I lost my home when half our town burnt down in a 32,000 hectare forest fire. The other half is untouched and there's not even soot on the town, nevermind into the atmosphere. Massive amounts of boreal forest burn yearly. So their scenario is pure speculation with zero basis in reality.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Massive amounts of boreal forest burn yearly. So their scenario is pure speculation with zero basis in reality. It's speculation shared by nuclear and climate scientists.
      - dismalaf 2y ago
        15 million hectares burned in Canada alone in 2023. We average over 2 million hectares of burnt forest per year. Some quick maths. 15 million ha is 150,000km2. Tsar Bomba blast area was 16km2. It would take over 9000 Tsar Bombas to burn as much forest as only Canada's 2023 forest fire season. Maybe provide some source for your assertion...
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Tsar Bomba blast area was 16km2. It would take over 9000 Tsar Bombas to burn as much forest as only Canada's 2023 forest fire season The fire burns beyond the blast area. Also, urban fires produce > Maybe provide some source for your assertion Sure [1][2]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219184/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219184/ [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00794-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00794-y

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Given how well Russian technology has performed in Ukraine versus American technology, I'd put money on American tech Capable of carrying 1,185 warheads. Plus decoys. The “T” in THAAD stands for terminal. That means the warheads and decoys must be targeted separately. We’d need thousands of THAAD interceptors to even begin to feel comfortable about surviving, as a republic, a Russian nuclear exchange. (To say nothing of such an exchange immediately leaving us intensely vulnerable to China.) Our missile defences protect against rogue nuclear states. North Korea. Some day, Iran. They are not intended to defeat MAD.

dismalaf 2y ago
> The “T” in THAAD stands for terminal. Yes. Terminal means the downward phase of a ballistic missile's flight. THAAD can target them before they reenter the atmosphere. That's the point. And other BMD systems are designed to target them in the earlier phases of flight.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > THAAD can target them before they reenter the atmosphere Not relevant. They've already separated. That means you have to count warheads and decoys, not missiles.

openasocket 2y ago

THAAD cannot intercept ICBMs…