Just like the peace loving people of the USA, France, UK and China......And the peace-loving Russian People works ever harder towards the goal of world harmony.
That would not be a big loss. Unfortunately, everybody else perishes also.Remember - the US has over a dozen ballistic subs (so called "Trident" class), each carrying 14, 16 and up to 24 missiles with each missile having 8 warheads. Suffice it to say that both countries could effectively wipe each other out handily.
Where would you run for healthcare.That would not be a big loss. Unfortunately, everybody else perishes also.
We all go together when we go.Where would you run for healthcare.
Small note: Trident is the missle. Ohio is the SSBN class and there are currently 18 in service. The Ohio's carry 24 missiles and the SSGN variant (4 of the 18 being converted) have 22 tubes carrying a total of 154 cruise missiles.Remember - the US has over a dozen ballistic subs (so called "Trident" class), each carrying 14, 16 and up to 24 missiles with each missile having 8 warheads. Suffice it to say that both countries could effectively wipe each other out handily.
Thanks for the video, I love this stuff.
Thanks for the video. Creepy is certainly the right word.If you think the launch is kinda creepy, watch the video of the warheads arriving on target!! This is what doomsday might look like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=Z8csh1_8Sh4
those are useless against any sort of mass attack. With decoys and now maneuvering warheads they are utterly useless.The offense part is easy, we’ve been doing it well for decades. The harder problem is defense:
https://youtu.be/bAjUM_hf8DE
I’m not sure it’s a mass attack that’s the main concern, it’s an upstart rouge state (Iran, North Korea) that’s the focus.those are useless against any sort of mass attack. With decoys and now maneuvering warheads they are utterly useless.
Most unlikelyBy the way Valdemar I of Denmark was his half Great Nephew.
I guess the only disadvantage of protectiles is that they cannot change course to follow evasive maneuvers of the missiles.The future for missile defence might be projectile based vs rocket propelled. Eg: Railgun technology. Originally developed for ship defence - it has offensive applications and ground based ballistic missile defence applications. The challenge for on-ship applications is the energy required. Also - because of the ultra high muzzle velocities (eg: Mach 7) the barrels have to be changed regularly because the sabots literally vaporize a layer of the barrel shot by shot. But the economics make sense - each round is low 6 figures vs 7 figures for a missile. The energy in the round would literally obliterate a missile with no explosive charge required. Apparently the Chinese have beaten the U.S. with a working ship-based rail gun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UKk84wjBw0
I agree. The FTG-15 and THAAD are for homeland defense and certainly won't be decisive in a shooting war with Russia or China. However the technology is migrating to ship and mobile missiles, where the platform can be used to defend a city, a fleet or troops from low volume attacks.those are useless against any sort of mass attack. With decoys and now maneuvering warheads they are utterly useless.
Neither of those countries have long range ICBM capability, so FTG-15 and THAAD are of little defensive value to the US. The US does have ship and mobile based ABMs, but American ABM systems today are currently <50% effective and ships typically only carry 2-3 ABM missiles.I’m not sure it’s a mass attack that’s the main concern, it’s an upstart rouge state (Iran, North Korea) that’s the focus.
lol - good one. Only problem is it's the Blue states are the ones designing and building them and are the home states of the officers that command their launch. The grunts from red states are limited to cleaning the operations rooms. Besides Trump's few assets that actually make money are all in blue states and you know who Trump serves - just Trump!With any luck they’ve been optimized to defend Red states.