How Many Nuclear Missiles Can the United States Intercept?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 май 2024
- Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) armed with nuclear warheads can be intercepted during the boost phase, midcourse phase and terminal phase. But the complexities around intercepting them, is #NotWhatYouThink #NWYT
Special thanks to Ivan Stepanov for sharing some of his in-game footage. Make sure to check out his RUclips channel / @ivanstepanov9697
00:00 Detecting ICBM
1:47 Boost Phase Intercept
6:06 Midcourse Phase Intercept
9:15 Decoys during Midcourse Phase
11:10 How Many ICBMs can be Realistically Intercepted
12:44 Terminal Phase
14:35 Intercepting Nukes with Nukes
15:09 Conclusion
Music:
Ghosting - Christoffer Moe Ditlevsen
Leaps - Jay Varton
Displaced - Robert Ruth
Tarantula - Hysics
Resurgence - Deskant
Breakneck Pace - Max Anson
Solve it - Max Anson
One Last Drama - Phillip Ayers
Thrill to Haunt - Max Anson
Command Pattern - Max Anson
Footage:
Ivan Stepanov
Videoblocks
Russian Ministry of Defense
Creative Commons
Nuclear War Simulator
US Department of Defense
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
“The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five.”
― Carl Sagan
A nuclear cold war is far better than a nuclear winter.
@@brettminer1079 good one
It's really scary how easy it is to destroy earth. Or at least humankind. I think it will happen by 2050. I hope I'm wrong.
Lmao
You know I think your on to somting!
The US and Russian radar and missile bases architecture look like things out of sci-fi movies. It's quite cool to see, but also incredibly scary at the same time.
USA, Russia, China, India and isreal are the countries with capabilities to intercept ICBM with there multiple layer shield and yes they all have those cool looking Radars and missile systems on both ground and sea.
@@sourabhgupta4853 haven't russo-ukranian war teach you anythung ? that modern armies can fail mesirably ? never say someone has this or can do that , we all said russian would anter kiev in two days and look how its ending .
@@algeriapower7242 Russia obviously would not win quickly, even though they will eventually win.
It is only as scary as Russia wants to make it. They back down, and there is no issue. They don't, the US will make full use of it. Simple as that. It is in Russia's hands when the world ends. Remember that when you think Russia is not the bad guy.
they look like the base in World Trigger
If one side has effective protection against a nuclear attack it can upset the balance of the mutually assured destruction doctrine. It sort of makes it safer that there is very little defence, or at least makes a strategic nuclear exchange less likely.
The MAD doctrine only works with reasonable people in charge. With Putin's erratic imperialistic demands on former Soviet States, Japanese Islands and Alaska, Biden's advanced age or Trump's advanced age and fascist tendencies, this is not a given balance.
The physics and speeds involved make the actual engagement window very small, as well as making it very hard to hit, again, because of the speeds involved. It's not an easy thing at all. The problem with ship-based interception is where the ship is relative to the target path. Ground-based can usually be assumed to be somewhere on or near the inbound missile path, so you don't have to worry about cross-range issues. (i.e. crossing targets are almost impossible...)
Every reasonable being has to conclude that it is safer to reduce the number of nuclear weapons further considerably and to recognize the sovereignty of all other nations.
@@christophmessner6450 Tell russians about it and hear the reaction.
It's amazing to think that if only one GBI ever stops a single nuclear strike, it will have more than paid for its entire development and operation.
But I wouldn't think that. I wouldn't even think that if it stopped 99 out of 100.
99 out of 100 would be phenomenal. The damage from 1 nuke isn't that bad compared to like 50... well, unless it hits you
@@joshuacheung6518 You can only hope for the best.
Yeah I was thinking that. Unless you consider that interception as part of the enemy's game plan, and why they aim multiple warheads at each target. Then the target is still destroyed and what the interceptor has actually done is make the enemy spend more on extra warheads and missiles. Assuming they do that. This stuff is complicated..
@@UncleKennysPlace even the Israeli Iron Dome rocket defense which is one of the best ever made only has a 90% hit rate meaning out of 10 rockets (statistically) 1 will get through which is still phenomenal in terms of how complex that technology is
If I remember correctly, the U.S is currently pursuing around three hypersonic weapons programs and one of those programs is specifically catered to ICBM interception and homeland air defense.
You think the u.s. is just now pursuing hypersonic weapons? Lol. That's old news my man
@@lukebalderose334 what ever they say theyre starting research on, theyve already their homework nearly a few decades ago. If anything they’re saying they might start producing
@@user-ox4bv3it4i the x-15 went mach 6 in 1967 with a pilot.
@@lukebalderose334 That doesn't mean that hypersonic weapons are totally old news. We may have done it experimentally then with tech we had at the time, but that doesn't necessarily mean we went straight into making a weapons system like the ones we're developing today. To be clear, we did do lots of work on hypersonic ICBM defense systems like the Sprint program, but modern systems are very different and use many innovations that came about since then. (If you haven't seen the videos of the Sprint tests I recommend checking them out, they're really cool)
It's a bit like how the Wright brothers flew in 1903 and the first commercial airports opened in the late 1910s and early 1920s, but modern air travel uses massive jetliners with technologies that only started coming about in the last 40 years or so.
Hypersonic attack missiles cannot be intercepted. Radars don't detect them, and by the time you have a visual it's too late.
Simply put, avoid nuclear war at any cost! interceptors won't make any significant deference against a determined and sustained nuclear attack.
The US Military did test a system using a enhanced radiation warhead aka neutron bomb in the mid 60’s. It was called The Sprint - and it’s performance was almost beyond belief:
Sprint accelerated at 100 g, reaching a speed of Mach 10 (12,300 km/h; 7,610 mph) in 5 seconds. Such a high velocity at relatively low altitudes created skin temperatures up to 6,200 °F (3,427 °C), requiring an ablative shield to dissipate the heat.[2][3] The high temperature caused a plasma to form around the missile, requiring extremely powerful radio signals to reach it for guidance. The missile glowed bright white as it flew.
Hey, come to think of this, anyone here knows why the US never makes a group of satellites armed with KVs and deploys them over Russia 24/7? ... Tracking ICBMs in this way would be more responsive and effective than the conventional methods.
@@JohnKickboxingthat’s basically what Star Wars was going to be. Was going to be stupidly expensive, and also risked a preemptive strike since if it worked, it would have been way too expensive for the USSR to replicate. But it’s also not clear it would ever work, because the soviets could’ve just built another 1000 ICBMs for less cost.
@@JohnKickboxing And what do you do about the submarines? Do you really think Russia or China or India is going to let the US place missile defense systems above their territoty and just clap?
The Russian Gazelle ABM has a speed of 12,900 mph.
I'm editing this so no one will know why it get many likes
Sus
LOL 😂
@@BlueShiny uwu
:)
LOL 😂
All anti-ballistic missiles used to carry nuclear warheads. Setting off a small nuclear explosion near incoming warheads can cause spontaneously fission. This causes the warheads to "fizzle".
Hence "radiation enhanced" warheads for interceptors.
Yeah, I'm no rocket scientist but I thought of tactically using nukes vs nukes right away. Maybe I play too many video games. lol
@@filth_nasty That's basically the premise of Missile Command which was an Atari game released in 1980.
They have to be within 300 feet to be effective. It is really not anything to rely on. As they said the warhead free falls to target at about 15 thousand mph.
neutron weapons?, but they can kill anything below the explosion site, they would make large portions of the oceans dead zones
It would have been worth pointing out that the difficulty with mid-course interception is because in the vacuum of space it is very hard to discriminate between a lightweight decoy and a heavier warhead as they follow the same trajectories. You can even put warheads inside of decoy balloons so they look the same as the actual decoys.
No it's not. They have different mass and momentum. You can do things to tease out that information.
@@ElessarUSMCa decoy is supposed to have the same mass. Its a decoy.
@@ElessarUSMC Dude, you don't have that much time.
ICBMs travel close to 9 times as fast as the F-22 using after burners. So less than 45 minutes, most Russian ICBMs from mainland Russia, in the HUNDREDS, plus HUNDREDS more decoys... would be landing all across the US (same shit happening across Russia, too).
SLBM (ICBMs launched from nuclear subs roaming close to the coasts of the enemies) only need ~15 to 20 or so minutes to reach many of their targets.
As said, by others, most ICBMs contain MIRVs... a few to as many as 14 or so per ICBM.
MIRVs split from the "mother" ICBM roughly half way on their parabolic flight.
If they travel up to Mach 26, and if each of the THOUSANDS ICBMs launched (by the US, France, Britain, Russia, India, Pakistan, China) contain a few to a dozen plus MIRVs ---- plus the thousands of CHEAP but equally fast pieces of metallic decoys flying alongside them ---- you are talking about THE END OF HUMANITY ON EARTH.... you're NOT talking leisurely using super computers to help you track real MIRVs from decoys, for the purposes of you zapping the real MIRVs out of the sky above your head, as some 4th grade Hollywood movies and stupid CGI games have been doing.
Each ~450lb MIRV --- as well as the many dozens of 750lb B61-12 small gravity thermonuclear bombs carried by F-15, F-16, Super Hornets, F-22, F-35, B-52, Lancer, B-2, etc. ---- has up to 20 times the power of the crude 10,000lb FAT MAN dropped on Nagasaki, 1945.
You don't need more than 2-3 little MIRVs --- not 2-3 ICBMs but 2-3 MIRVs, of which ONE ICBM may carry up to 14 or so ---- to wipe out much of a city like San Diego, SF, LA, Washington, New York, Beijing, Moscow, London, Paris, Berlin.
The radiation from the blast will kill off the rest, a few hours to a few days/weeks later.
No foods are good to eat and NO FIELDS can grow safe foods, as deadly radiation fall-out's will cover much of the world. Even for the few end-time crazies in deep, well stocked bunkers who could survive in there for a few weeks to a few months.... they will die horrible deaths, a bit later, after some cannibal activities among themselves, in their bunkers...
Earth wouldn't be back to "normal" for another 5,000 to 10,000 to 50,000 years...
@@kiabtoomlauj6249Some of your information is inaccurate.
@kiabtoomlauj6249 Lmao a full scale nuclear war would be far far from the end of humanity. We do not have enough warheads on the planet for that. There would be a lot of health concerns but it'd be very underwhelming
A better defense than an interceptor is tough to think about. Im thinking about clouds and lightning. Perhaps by launching a large amount of conductive mass into the air (enough to cover all the air over a country), predicting the trajectory of the missile as it gets closer, and then rendering much of the mass nonconductive (explosives or insulators?), an electric grid in the air could be rapidly deployed.
Then lightning is produced on the ground using a ridiculously powerful generator, channels throughout the grid in the air (the grid might also be produced by using contrails of argon gas as conduit), and the lightning vaporizes the missile as it passes through the grid. Basically turn the missile into a lightning rod.
"never-fail weapon system"
sometimes the optimism of the American government could put a smile on one's face
Right!?
Tell me again, how many conflicts has the U.S. lost again? I mean versus the rest of the worlds powers.
*Maybe that optimism is deserved*
@@Darkmattermonkey77 More importantly, how many has its military been defeated in. People can split hairs all they want and point at failure to achieve objectives meaning they lost, but was their military defeated in any of those split-hair cases? No.
@@Darkmattermonkey77 Vietnam
@@Darkmattermonkey77 We lose because, even with all our foreign policy criticism and missteps, of our tendency for war weariness and ultimate respect for democratic "liberal" values and other country sovereignty not because of strength. We try to "contain", "nation build", "occupy" and then clumsily hand the reins over, not just stomp the shit out of a country and completely annex or take it over permanently. If we were a dictatorial conqueror nation, with low war weariness and no respect for political boundaries, the world would be a much different place.
@@shlokkesarwani801 yep the mission failed but we shouldn't've been there in the first place. If that happened in 2022 we would be the war criminals instead of Russia.
Tbh i agree with the last part. I don't think NK's nuclear missiles are advanced enough as compared to China or Russia so the defense system would have a higher chance of working on Nk's missiles
the problem is the number. all he talked about is what takes to stop 1 icbm not 200. and china anounced las year 250 new silos. NK alone has tens of them of unkown quality. and they may not be able to hit the US but for sure they can hit japan.
@@lucaskp16 the hard thing is knowing if some of these nations have the teeth to back up the threat. China for instance, could literally be building dummy silos to appear stronger, but a wise man would not treat it that way. Let’s just hope it is only and remains only, theatre on the world stage.
NK doesn't have thermonuclear weapons, unlike the US, Russia and China. I don't believe they have independently targeted warheads either.
@@ApolloTheDerg you cant underestimate a $18T China and a space power unless you dont believe in US's technology and weapons too. The two are the only defacto superpowers.
@@ApolloTheDerg Yep look at how the US tricked the USSR with the STARWARS program. The USSR had to treat it as legitimate even if the tech was suspiciously advanced, because the US had many sectors of tech that was more advanced than their own.
Thank you, this will be very useful
Great educational video on nuclear weapons which provides a more in depth understanding of what to expect in the event of a nuclear attack 😢😢😢
I spent 5 years having ICBMs fired at my location when I worked at Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Test Site in the Marshall Islands (Kwajalein Missile Range back then). We used to stand on the beach and watch them appear over the ocean at the horizon in the east as the test firings were launched from Vandenberg AFB. These were the quarterly tests of actual missiles pulled randomly, warhead removed, and fired both to show the Soviet Union they still worked, but also to test myriad Star Wars era programs to shoot down ICBMs. The largest number of MIRVs I witnessed was 5 as these were dispersed as the ICBM was getting close to Kwajalein, so you could easily see the launch of each MIRV and its new trajectory towards its target.
Kwajalein is shown at 6:53, all the way over to the left. At 7:00 it displays an intercept launched from Kwajalein on a test flight from Vandenberg, however, when I was there, the intercepts were closer to Kwajalein at point of impact as we had a number of large cameras that would take photos at the moment of impact.
I would imagine the LRDR shown being built is constructed similarly to the radar on Kwajalein that is designed in an attempt to survive a relatively close nuclear blast (obviously not a direct hit). The inside is filled with steel cross beams so much that you can hardly walk without having to constantly duck your head. It has a huge blast door that covers the radar, where the intent would be to re-open after an attack and be able to "see" other launches.
Lots of memories and fascinating stories from my time there!
Interesting stuff. But you were not affected from the radiation?
@@zk2399 “warhead removed” so no nuclear payload
Too bad its just bullshit and a ridiculous attempt for attention from random people on the internet lol
@Radio OH2DX Either you are not entirely complete in your brain wiring, or you are a drunk russian
@Jesse Champagne all the stuff we got now is a direct result of those tests. Space is the next military frontier. We're way ahead of others in this regard.
pretty scary to have a weapon that you will either never use
or use them all at once
If it goes nuclear the planet will die. MAD
@@dbasiliere Planet will leave, Man will do
We came to meet the planet
this is why NATO should be focusing on deescalation, not pushing for stronger actions in Ukraine. This is not WW2!
@@wolfswinkel8906 if you look in the bigger picture, the push is just to borrow money from federal reserve so that the rich and hidden hand stay rich and war efforts require funding. Illuminati.
@@wolfswinkel8906 I don’t think Russia will listen to de-escalation talks
Good stuff, as always. Liked and subscribed.
That interceptor test done inside the cage has to be the angriest machine ever caught on video
I think it's more than ok if you start using "it's exactly what you think" more often.
Ok, but we will also use this emoji more💩
I think the term NOT WHAT YOU THINK is better in my opinion
@@NotWhatYouThink okay
Sometimes its EXACTLY what we think.... and its always the worst case scenarios 😂
@@NotWhatYouThink 👀👀👀
It seems hopeless tbh, the attacking missile just needs to hit vaguely in the right area, while the demands on the defending missile are so much more. If the attacking system costs less, then ultimately you can afford more of them than the defensive ones, and thus some will get through.
Size of the big nuclear arsenal's just seems designed to make defense financially unfeasible as much as anything
I'd argue that in the modern day, with the looming threat of small salvos, while nuclear use is unthinkable, it may become that having ABM is the only useful choice for an up and comer.
Think about it.
If you cannot or do not have nuke, but face the threat of that, then all considerations of this go out the window.
The interceptor can be nuclear tipped too and it don’t have to be that accurate. Back in the Cold War, Soviet Union explored this idea because the lack of accurate guidance systems, leading to the aforementioned A135. At the same time, the Chinese even proposed nuclear cannons to intercept missiles…
The attacking systems probably don't cost less. The real reason there are substantially fewer in interceptors than offensive missiles is primarily due to the history around ABM treaties. The US only left that treaty a few years ago and began to dramatically scale up its ABM efforts. That's partly why there is such a large gap between interceptability and offensive weapons. The dramatic improvement of the SM-3 and SM-6 families, the spreading of Aegis Ashore batteries and THAAD batteries, and the development of new programs... is going to narrow this gap significantly in the next 20 years.
@@KoishiVibin Nukes have value if they are not used. They are used to threaten and deter.
But interceptors have no values if you do not get attacked. You cannot say: "Do this or we will use our defense.."
And when you are attacked by a nuclear force, you basically have 0% chance you can defend yourself anyway, like this video illustrates (video is still too optimistic). So interceptors have no value basically, they are just a waste of a lot of money.
@@kedrednael They can make attacking a full attack only option. Plus it can protect you against countries like NK.
They have value. And if properly used they could stop hundreds of heads..
This is why the chinese are moving from a few hundred heads to thousands.
For the short-range strategy, i'd bet on laser systems. Their reaction is quite fast, and the laser beam travels at speed of light.
Also, Patriot and THAAD interceptors should be added on the combo.
To intercept an ICBM in the orbital phase, it is better to launch a nuke against it. The EMP wave should be enough to disable all the MIRVs. It would fry all the electronics in a huge area below, but it is worth it.
...and then there are the nuclear tipped cruise missiles coming in from ships and submarines going mach 2.5 and flying 50' off the ground
Good stuff, good video like always 👍👍
Imagine a world where countries didnt waste money on these doomsday machines.
They even named one the long range discrimination radar!!!💀💀💀
They don't look at it as wasting money quite the contrary, they look at it making money, psychopathic psychology!
It was like that prior to WW2. Nuclear missiles have counter intuitively reduced conflict between the nuclear armed nations. No longer do they engaging directly with each other in fullscale war, instead engaging in smaller proxy/cold wars.
I'd say, the nuclear threat prevented the outbreak of a third/fourth worldwar. The second took approximately 50 - 60 million lives with conventional weapons in a limited area. You really think, mankind needs nuclear weapons (doomsday devices) to annihilate each other? I think not.
After seeing Russia invade Ukraine (which gave up its Nukes post separation from Russia) and the atrocities on civilians you can imagine what would happen in a world without Nukes !!
At the Battle of Gettysburg apparently a bullet intercepted a bullet. An individual found this extremely rare object and we are lucky enough to have a video of the conjoined bullets.
What does that have to do with Nukes?
@@rocketman3285 6:19 Watch the video before commenting.
That was WW1 not gettysburg
Russia is nothing but a pepper Tiger as same as China , North Korea and Iran So what you have to rely on is America The inventor and franchiser of 98% of World modern and future Technologies and about interception Haven't you already heard about Tr3b Black Manta or Starship Cargo or mobilizing Starlink futuristic satellites with Super advanced Laser System from Space BTW I'm not biased I'm actually Iranian and most of the people here says the same thing so let alone the world
I mean it's not that unfathomable that two bullets collide in a War..
The question is how many can they shoot back at you !
This is the best video I have found for multiple re-entry vehicle I got to figure this out a defense system and e-mail united states. This is a serious problem and I hope they have a solution.
The test footage of the EKV was very cool to watch. Similar to how I felt first time watching the SpaceX boosters that return and land. So amazing how we can get stuff to basically levitate with precision jets.
puke
I like to watch footage of cats biting people.
Time stamp please
@@maheshrathod5593 Yeah I can't find it either
7:06
There can't be a nuclear war, I've got bills to pay
You won't have any bills to pay if there's a nuclear war
A nuclear war will create a post apocalypse where you don’t have to pay bills and can just get radiated food from the local ruined grocery store
It wouldn't matter, run em up🧾💳
Wonder if elites (like those credit card companies owners) would survive in their bunkers... Imagine? You survive a nuclear war to still have to pay the bills after all
If even a single particle of fallout lands on your property, you can probably sue the aggressor.
Intelligent video, rare thing nowadays.
Great. Very educational.
I've lived with this threat all my life, 63 years and counting. The best I can hope is I don't live long enough for it to happen, but short of that I'll be within the immediate blast area and vaporize before I know I've even blinked my eyes. I certainly have no desire to survive an all out nuclear war for any reason.
Just plan your vacation to Rio to coincide with all out nuclear war, and you can watch it all on tv while sipping a margarita.
Better brush up on your spanish though, it'll be an extended stay.
@@kathrynck Portuguese would be more useful.
watch less media and your fear will disappear
@@farlonfudpucker6640 good point
@@kathrynck Portuguese will serve you better as will a Caipirinha instead of a margarita, but we get the idea.
This is also why in Watchmen it was an insanely big deal that Dr. Manhattan was expected to be able to intercept 80-90% of a soviet nuclear attack.
Like flares for a plane unless you can tell the nuclear aspect of the scenario it could be 1000 to 1
“No ship Sherlock”…I’m not that familiar w/ this channel so that was kinda unexpected for me. But so satisfying. & his accent made it even better 😂
"who would have thought, shooting down nukes with nukes"
literally me since the beginning of the video just thinking to myself haven't anyone thought of that?!
Same lmao
The US used to have a system called NIKE that did just that was basically phased out in the late 70's and shipped to Europe and japan and was in service till mid 80's only reason I know about it was my Dad was a techinican on the weapon system and Missed being stationed in Europe by a few months
Russia loves solving problems with nukes - closing oil/gas wells with nukes, intersepting nukes with nukes and projecting power with nukes. Pitty you can't eat nukes and wear them otherwise life wouldn't be that harsh in Russia
Yup, thought the same. ^^
Would that not create massive emp over the area that they exploded over. I guess you won’t die but you’ll be living in the 1800s after
“Relax, everything will be fine”
-Someone shortly before something becomes not fine
Great video thanks!
What a great question to be interested in right now! 🤪👍
ok. Im terrified after watching this. I didnt realize there were so many technological advancements in nukes to the point where they have decoys for interception systems. good lord
Yeah isn't it incredible? Only planet within lifetimes that can sustain us and we spend more money (we as in HUMANS) inventing ways to kill eachother than can be measured.
It's mindblowing. Especially considering, 80% of the planet wouldn't do this and 5% are the ones consistently pushing this agenda in every country on this rock. We have, insane people
at the wheel. Insane.
The likelihood of a full-scale Nuclear war is extremely unlikely as there hasn’t been a singular Nuclear test (besides North Korea) for any major power within the last two decades since 1992 and by then, most Nuclear Missiles would be unusable due to corrosion, aged components that are irreplaceable or too expensive to afford a total rebuild, or the Warhead is at this point too old and is relatively less effective; therefore we can believe that a good 75% or more unusable and the rest would probably be intercepted.
And seeing how the Russian military is performing in terms of their vehicles, we can also guess pretty well that Russia pretty much has very expensive underground paperweight.
Don’t let fear get to you, you’ll have a long prosperous life, however with the recent events, only good can come out of it, if Russia wanted to nuke us, they’d already have done it starting with Ukraine from the very get-go.
They have ALWAYS had decoys.
@@evolvedego673 Most major powers probably do simulation tests. France stopped doing live nuclear tests in the Pacific after the fall out contaminated French Polynesia and islands near New Zealand. France switched to simulation tests for their M51( and probably M46) missiles, which got commissioned in 2011
The video from decoys are like 50 years old. It's just that people are always misinformed about the missile defense. In the news they just say: "Oh we have missile defense jippie, nukes are outdated haha". But at no point in history could a nuclear attack be stopped. This video is still too optimistic even.
But despite there being no defense, no one launched the nuclear weapons. Because it's suicide, also for the people who order the attack. They wage war to gain power. Nuclear war only has losers, so it's not good to use them, even for the most selfish leaders. A real danger would be a crazy (idealistic/ religious/ indoctrinated) leader who does not care for people live's in his country, including his own life.
Remember nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent and threat. If no one believes they will be used, even during war, then they loose their deterring property, basically rendering them useless. This could escalate war more easily, and make their actual use more likely. So countries threatening to use their nukes is not crazy, that threat *is* the nukes' main use. Being perceived as crazy *is* the leaders' intention. Otherwise the nukes don't deter, since no rational person would ever use them.
So probably we won't have nuclear war.
Putin says "Put the nuclear weapons on high alert" on TV. That doesn't even mean anything for the Russian forces probably. But it scares (the public in) the West and makes them support Ukraine less, to avoid angering Putin too much. This enables Russia to wage their war in Ukraine more effectively. It gives them an advantage. That threat from Putin on TV makes a lot of sense right.
On the other hand, if Putin had said "This is just between Ukraine and Russia, we are not thinking about nuclear weapons", the west would feel safe to support Ukraine a bit more maybe, which could cause accidents and more hate and escalate the war, so suddenly NATO is really involved, then WW3 really happens and nukes really get used.
So probably we won't have nuclear war.
The general rule of thumb for US based r&d is to assume the publicly available info is about 15 years out of date
Some of this is newer than what i was aware of 7 years ago
I think people romanticize the US military a little too much. It is not as sci-fi as you would think. It is just an extremely capable military with a huge budget.
and equipment from the 60s
@@redox4088 I mean everyone thought we were still years behind on hypersonic missiles until like a week ago when the gov quietly announced that we tested one. The Ukraine news had completely made that news fizzle out pretty quick but the hypersonic system we tests is so much more robust than Russia’s which is mainly designed for taking out aircraft carriers and nobody really bat an eye so while I usually would honestly agree with your statement I don’t think you should underestimate it either
@@TheDoctorsGaming101 Russia was only ahead because they took advantage of the US actually adhering to the START treaty, which banned testing and producing hypersonic weapons between the two nuclear powers. The United States pulled out of the START treaty when Russia refused to stop developing them. The entire situation is actually hilariously hypocritical when you hear the reaction from Putin after the United States tore up START.
Well done video. All mostly old public domain info and some new public info. There is a ton more that is not known and will never be released.
Worse case scenario. What about a EMP electro magnet pulse or specialized missiles that specifically detect radiation from ICBMs terminal phase. Like a flying guiger counter to detect only nukes.
Your videos are great. Wonderful explanation with excellent footage/pictures/diagrams. Keep up the great work!
Great video! Missile warning systems, while useful for missile interception, are mainly there to remove first strike capability from an enemy.
Do you understand what first strike is?? Launching 100+ nukes is first strike... North Korea can't launch first strike.. It will be just case of aggression... First strike can't be stopped.. The moment first strike is launched the targetted nation must do a retaliatory strike within minutes before the country gets doomed..
Like it would matter enough to make nuclear war a viable option.
if US intelligence notices that the enemy is going to use nuclear weapons, then it will hit its nuclear facilities so that the enemy cannot use them, because of the satellites, the US knows the location of the nuclear facilities of its enemies, and distinguishes fake objects using X-ray satellites and synthetic aperture satellites. And these interceptors are like insurance, if suddenly the enemy manages to launch a couple of dozen ICBMs
When the military makes information publicly available, it means they have something at least 10x better. When they released GPS to the public, they were using a more accurate GPS system already. So as amazing as everything in this vid is, there are even more amazing things out there you’ve never heard of.
I love that Borat is narrating videos now
"Kaput, Пиздец, Game over"
Got me laughing out loud
When will Russia nuke Ukraine?
with a range of up to 200km the laser would have still been ineffective as ICBM launch sites are located well within national borders. Similarly, no interceptor missile could be in position to intercept an ICBM during its boost phase. The US made Sprint Anti-Ballistic Missile could achieve mach 10 in 15 seconds, and was intended to intercept ICBMs in the latter part of their flight as they descended below 37 miles altitude (59+km).
There is virtually zero chance the US doesn't have laser platforms in orbit, precisely to intercept any ICBM before it leaves Russian airspace... And if there is one, you can bet there is a constellation of them.
@@MegaMeaty This is bullshit. lol
@@MegaMeaty the 'Starfish Prime' nuclear test, of 1962 seemed to work ok.
@@MegaMeaty Look up old soviet experiments with EMP's. You will find it very interesting. Shutting down those multi layer systems is a piece of cake. The only real defense in nuclear warfare is EXTENSIVE self sustainable underground infrastructure.
@slam slam That was sarcasm, but can't control your idiocy. It is actually well known all across the internet.
So an ICBM with nukes dropping from space is not a bomb, but a nuclear asteroid.
This is an amazing video
I remember reading that Reagan’s SDI considered a missile “intercepted” if the ABM got within a certain distance of the target. So, be wary of the word “intercepted” being used instead of “destroyed”. A normal person would consider those terms synonyms, but they aren’t.
Figures... I was worried about some double speak charlatan at one of these "defense companies" basically fleecing the gov't for everything it's worth and the damn thing goes up and farts out a Folgers coffee can.
HONKY! CORRECT! HONKY! THE! MINUTEMAN! (NUCLEAR)! MISSILE! IS! (COMPLETELY)! SAFE! HONKY! HONKIES! AREN'T! SAFE! HONKY! NOW! YOU! KNOW! HONKY! 🙂*MIKE! SPENCE! THE! (G,O,A,T,B)! HA! HA! HA!
@@codemiesterbeats Cynical much? You have to crawl before you can walk.
Great work! Amazing work you have put on this video. Thanks
Nuclear ABMs were some of the first types developed by the United States. Look up the Nike Hercules and Nike Zeus missiles. This dates back to the 1950's. From what I understand, the potential impact to the US' own satellites and infrastructure was the main reason that these were phased out.
I believe some of the early tests showed significant impact to the Van Allen when a nuclear ABM was detonated that caused TV satellite outages. Image 70 years later with all of our GPS, communications, and imaging satellites that we have. What good would it be to potentially intercept a few incoming ICBMs if you lose the capability to do anything else after that?
The recently developed Quantum Plasma Deflection Fields (QPDF) are capable of dissipating incoming ICBMs rather efficiently, making them highly suitable for the task
Sci-fi-fan? force fields are far beyond human tech.
"Never-fail weapon system"
"Unsinkable" was what they called a certain ship which went down on it's maiden voyage.
I'm assuming your talking about the titanic and not the Bismarck
Exactly
“Strongest economy in the world”
@@typicalwatcher1557 There was a cat which survived the sinking of the Bismarck that was called "Unsinkable Sam", not the vessel itself, so far as I know.
I assume you are talking about the S.S. Minnow
I'm honestly impressed by the time and effort you put into these videos. Keep it up! 🤚
Reading Wikipedia?
@James Stocks All ICBM are supersonic.
@@markluhman8940
Supersonic hedgehog will save us! 😶
This guy's voice exudes total inhalation "Hide your kids, hide you wifes(s), we're all fuqed!" hahaha
The fact that you think we would shoot one of these missiles down to stop it makes me belly laugh. Applauding ignorance though is pretty saddening.
US had the "Safeguard" with a 5M-ton warhead on the Spartan missile to kill Russian ICBMs back in the 70-ies, but the program was terminated a few days after it came online because of MIRV technology.
You forgot the last and probably coolest line of defence, the CWIS. 20mm gattling guns that shoot a barage of bullets at near 4,000 FPS. It's not ideal but if a few missles happen to sneak through and get too close then we have no choice but to try to blast them out of the sky with as many rounds of 20mm before they makes contact.
You're only seeing what they want you to see. No way are they disclosing their current defense systems.
Fact’s. I’m a veteran. Trust we have some shit people don’t even know about. You never show your entire hand.
@@robertbrooks3007 The us has alien force fields that work by using anti-gravity that they reversed engineered from an alien power unit from a spacecraft that crash landed.
@@TheBestestOne Uncle Sam your drunk go to bed
@@ThisHandleIsTakenTryThishe's not far off. The US certainly have anti gravitational weapons.
@@LTC366 na
What a great video. I already know how all this stuff works, but the illustrations are great.
MAD sounds like a cheaper solution. Anyway, thanks for the explanation, I feel much safer now.
0:28: 🚀 Intercepting a single ICBM is not as easy as it seems, as it can take up to 30 seconds to detect the launch and a decision must be made whether it is hostile or not.
6:33: 🚀 The Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Program is a $40 billion defense system intended to protect the United States from ballistic missiles.
10:17: 🛰️ The US defense systems rely on radars to discriminate between lethal targets and decoys in order to intercept ICBMs effectively.
13:35: 🚀 The American Ballistic Missile Defense System can intercept short-range, medium-range, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, but not Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles.
Recap by Tammy AI
Great video! Missile warning systems, while useful for missile interception, are mainly there to remove first strike capability from an enemy. By knowing early on when a nuclear strike is about to occur, we can assure the launch of our own nukes before they're taken out. Its all part of MAD doctrine that has so far kept the nukes in their silos.
Yeah.. sure. Missile warning systems don't work at all...
Please let Isreal know when you get a chance.
I think they're mainly a defense against NKs and countries with smaller nuclear arsenals.
@@davecarsley8773 "Please let Isreal know"
Israel's Iron Dome is pretty effective at blocking the not-ICBMs launched at it. But if you have a special line with Israel let them know that bombing hospitals makes them look like Putin.
@@davecarsley8773 Iron Dome System is dogshit lmao, it's inferior
@@davecarsley8773 My lord, your comment is the kind of nonsense I come out with after half a gram of ketamine.
I think you are too quick to dismiss the SM-3.
Although they may have less range than their ground launched counterparts, they still have a reasonable range at 2,500 km for the newest variant (Block IIa).
Considering the US Navy has 69 (nice) Arleigh Burkes, they can afford to cover a lot of the seas.
Another thing to note is that ballistic missiles follows a very predictable ballistic path, requiring a relatively small area to defend making range even less important.
I am admittedly very biased and am a huge SM-3 fan, but I like to think my love for the missile is well placed.
You had me at 69.
@@NotWhatYouThink Yeah the idea that you need to be moving somewhere near Mach 24 to take out the warhead is just nonsense. The only thing closing velocity impacts is whether your C2 and decision making is fast enough to allow you to close and hit. The physics of the strike do not give one shit how fast you're going, the momentrum transfer is going to be enormous.
literally speaking nothing can stop an icbm if its past its apogee especially if they carry marv the speed difference is just too great for an interception to happen even for gmd there is a video from a russian test that showcases just how quickly things end once the marv hits the atmosphere 13 seconds
How can a targeted country identify the country of origin of an incoming missile that has been launch from a nuclear submarine? so that they can retaliate .
@@panthergaming732 they know where the subs are generally speaking
Ground based space based and Aircraft lasers working together on intercept along with Naval lasers together should be able to stop most of them in a few more years
lasers are too weak, and even if they become better in the next years you would need really many of them (not hundreds - tens of thousands!). problem was and is the energy and the slow recharge - against thousands of objects incoming with 7.5 km per second in ca. 500 km height at the same time.
I love that they used footage from kerbal Space Program (a viedogame) here you got the time 14:16
Excellent video. I must admit I find this subject incredibly interesting. All the aspects of it. The unbelievable amount of human capital thrown at it, the similarly enormous currency also thrown at the military defense contractors to develop insanely complicated systems. Then there is the actual technical impressiveness of the offensive weapons as well as the predictable “yang” of the threatened nations developing amazingly complex defensive systems. All in a constant battle between world powers playing a terrifying game of proverbial chess with billions of people as unwilling pawns. It’s all incredibly fascinating but a genuine tragedy for human beings. It’s evokes thoughts of what could have been if just somehow, some way, we could have managed to come together, to work towards goals for the common good and common man… the capability of the worlds best engineers and scientists could be hard to imagine. The great arc of civilization
Lol in addition, think of the unbelievably crazy scenario of the United States utilizing it’s reserve currency status in order to create mountains of debt, that is, fiat currency that virtually never before in history could be done to the level we have since 1971 post Nixon gold standard. All of this unprecedented ability to essentially get most other countries, including many of our enemies!! To basically pay for the development of our crazy nuclear projects that ultimately keep said countries under threat of annihilation . The United States ability to utilize its federal reserve to manipulate financial markets and control market incentives(to a point) combined with the world’s largest military and nuclear umbrella will probably go down in history as the most ingenious way to control the world geopolitically. But like all good “things” , this amazing display of “strength “ and dominance over the world for better or worse, will undoubtedly end spectacularly and explosively. Just hopefully not literally😅
I hope that day will be soon.
As we can say an unexploded nuke is as simple as garbage.what a waste of money getting rusty..😁😁😁😇😇
Conservatives: Working towards goals for the common good is communism!
This video is full of mis information check into HAARP tech,, it's the SDI success were not told about
“Reports claim Arrow 3 can intercept ballistic missiles while they are still outside the earth’s atmosphere.
… An arrow 3 battery can reportedly intercept salvos of more than 5 ballistic missiles within 30 seconds…”
Reminds me of Reagan's _Star Wars_ speech.
ha ha...it's a big joke. If enemy want to attack, they will attack.
Russia has more than 5 ICBM so still MAD is assured !!non will live to tell the future generations that they won a nuclear war .
@@ayat5483 the big joke is russias performance in Ukraine. Your name is an oxymoron.
@@four_20hitman___97 the problem is when you start believing your own bullshit
Here is a thought, the UK, US, and France are using quad packs for their anti air missiles on their destroyers. What this means instead of one missile per silo you have four. So instead of 48 on a T45 destroyer you potentialy have 4 times that number. Also one could develop a SM-3 with not just one warhead but 10 -50 plus warheads in a MIRV config. I think this is the most likelyu route, effecitively mirroring MIRVS development.
Excellent video
I always wondered what ever happened to the EKV program, nice to know they actually used it
I really hope that both superpowers have secret ICBM interceptors that are really quick to make them useless which would decrease chances of a nuclear war
You want the technology to be known but the quantity to be secret.
If your enemy knows you're capable of intercepting missiles they're less likely to launch, but that is useless if your enemy knows they can overwhelm the defense with shear numbers.
I bet both are shitting themselves. Nobody will win in nukes war.
@@brettminer1079 While the general idea is correct, I'd like to add something: if the enemy knows you can beat them, they wouldn't attack, however a cornered animal will almost always bite back if that means a chance at survival or at inflicting damage
I really believe if such technology existed, tensions already would've broken and we'd be in a full scale global conflict. Nuclear deterrence is literally the only thing that has prevented WW3
@@brettminer1079 If you have the technology, they probably have something similar. You know how many resources they are using thanks to espionage, so if you can make it, you can infer how much effort it would take for the other guy to do it too. So no you don't want to come out and just announce it, because you'd need to provide some sort of evidence that you aren't just bluffing. And then the enemy could engineer ways around it. It is best to keep it as secret as possible.
Hence, mutually assured destruction against a major adversary. To stop a few, they could probably do it.
It’s time to develop Satellite 🛰 that can shoot down ICBM with laser. That way once you detect ICBM launch, you could pinpoint shooting at the booster before it even enter atmosphere. Having this kind of protective shield is more practical if you can create one.
problem is: really effective lasers with a high effective range need such amounts of energy a satellite could never produce. and even then you would need several thousand satellites.
Congrats !
This is a rather good, factual and accurate summary of the current situation of ballistic missile defense technologies and capabilities. Also quite easy to understand for the general public.
of course it is its probably coming from the white house. the l.o.c. can do anything even trademark phrases. anything they want.
Very interesting the way this guy does his videos. I stayed interested all the way through. Nice job!
HONKY! THE! (ICBM)! HONKY! 🙂*MIKE! SPENCE! THE! (G,O,A,T,B)! HA! HA! HA!
Intercepting an ICBM involves a lot of Math and Psychics. In theories, it's doable but when you add the environmental factors the probability of intercepting it is reduced.
I really hope it doesn't involve psychics.
hitting a fired rifle bullet with your own bullet - and now 7,5 times faster.... sounds.... not doable.
16:05 yeah it is very likely there is more defense methods we dont know about that are classified so other nations dont develop ways to counter it
"Never-Fail Weapon System"? Does it work as good as "unsinkable" ships? 🥺
Better, as unpickable locks👌🏻
Much better. I have sources.
Sounds like "It'S uNhAcKaBlE!" to me :)
Makes sense why they're opting for laser weapons instead of the railgun. Faster and could fry inner systems of missiles even ICBMS. Lasers mounted on hypersonic missiles.
I still say Regan’s Star Wars be revisited. ICBMs in midcourse phase could be seen by a large orbiter defense platform that uses lasers. As said in the video the problem of lasers on ground is the atmosphere, in space, no atmosphere
Hypersonic is a misunderstood term in most cases. The U.S. was flying the X-15 at Mach 6.7 by 1967 with a pilot and winged with landing gear that flew 199 missions between 3 planes ! The U.S. had developed from the 50's to the mid 70's, Sentinel and Safeguard interceptor missiles with Spartan, exo-atmospheric , and Sprint, a short range Mach 10 interceptor for inter-atmospheric hits. Both systems worked but had shortcomings with the outlook that it only increased the nuke race ! So Sprint at Mach 10, ( 2 times hypersonic ) overcame the problems of radar tracking thru a plasma shield . However, detonating a nuke to take out an incoming warhead would blind our radars to any further inbound targets ! So it was good for only 1 hit then we were blind ! Not a good option. Intercept KILL VEHICLES now were cutting edge and worked but susceptible to decoys and other defenses. Time and again, all sides create measures and counter-measures which leads us all down a non-stop path of BANKRUPTCY ! Everyone should watch the video , " WHY WE FIGHT " by Eugene Jariky and learn how the , "MILITARY, INDUSTRAL, CONGRESSIONAL MACHINE " manipulates us into believing in foreign threats that most often, we ourselves create !
US does not actually have a layered missile defense system, though their public releases do sometimes alude to that.
What is actually meant is that US has different systems for different targets. GBIs and Aegis SM3 are for ICBMs (superpowers can ofc easily saturate GBIs, but not states like North Korea, on the off chance they even come out of the silo successfully), THAAD is for intermediate and medium range ballistic missiles, and Patriot is only for in-theater or tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs), think Russian Iskander-M.
SAMs like Patriot, S300, S400, S500, which are primarily designed to go after air breathing targets (even if they are hypersonic) are completely powerless against ICBM RVs flying at near orbital velocities. There the terminal phase doesn't last "about 1 minute", but about 12 seconds. Just think how utterly insane Nike's Sprint ABM was, and even that was ineffective and canceled after a few months (cost was also a problem).
you proved your own argument wrong, the fact that systems like s400 and s500 can shoot down ramjet weapons which are maneuverable, much more predictable target like an icbm is a fish in a barrel, although saturation could still be achieved, but only by Usa, no other nation has that much nukes, still much better than mim patriot though, which often took their own guys out of air.
I'm fairly convinced the US government took the Rods from God concept and scaled it down into an anti ICBM system. It lends itself perfectly to interception tactics when scaled-down, and even the best ICBM will have difficulty maneuvering fast enough to avoid a projectile flying at Mach 27.
@@DigitalRX2r First off bro, Icbms don't maneuver, I'd suggest you grasp rudimentary Knowledge of the topic, secondly, Us dominance is through stealth tech and not Missile defence systems, it's pretty obvious that Us could attack russia and the other way around, but Russians clearly have better measures to intercept icbms, not just by quantity, but quality too.
@@off_grid_javelin Ramjet and even scramjet powered hypersonic weapons, although we think of them as fast, flying at Mach 5-10, they are only fast in comparison to typical cruise missiles. That's still snail's pace for ICBMs. ICBM RVs will fly at about Mach 23-25, that's 7-8 km/s... 7-8 KILOMETERS PER SECOND. Your intercept window is AT BEST 12 seconds (which is unrealistic, because it discounts tracking, identification and decision time, not that it would matter either way). Not even Sprint was able to achieve interceptions in these conditions. Worse yet, at these insane speeds RVs will be engulfed into a 3000 degree ionized plasma cloak which blocks radar waves, making it impossible for radars to track them in the thickening atmosphere, which will also decelerate the reentry vehicle, meaning you can't just rely on ballistic trajectory.
So no, for foreseeable future (and probably never) there will be no way to stop ICBMs in terminal phase.
@@NLozar22 Still much more predictable than Hypersonic glide vehicle and missiles, the plasma cloak is added to the maneuvering these things have. And Icbms aren't any thing new, interceptors based on glide vehicles and hypersonic missile defenses like s500 have shot down Icbms in midcourse and early terminal phase with proximity fuse explosions, hypersonics are the real problem, Usa wouldn't have been worried about lagging behind in hypersonics if Icbms were so good, it's obvious that icbms are nearly obsolete upto almost 50% stoppable. Hypersonics ensure a 100% kill at present, whether at a carrier or a city.
there is a variety of intercept vehicles. hit to kill its just one type, you also have particle dispersing vehicles. deploying a cloud of shrapnel in the path of anything moving that fast will cause damage, this can address the maneuvering war heads because of the area it can cover.. Lazer weapons can now be mounted on a rocket, launching it fast and far above the atmosphere. smart artillery is also an option now days. idk...
Also drones. You could have a swarm of drones around every city that would lift up amid airstricke and do a suicide run towards the missle at high altitude.
The surest bet would be to saturate the airspace above known launch sites with concurrent nuclear blasts to create an impenetrable barrier to anything trying to get out of the atmosphere. There's far more ABM technology sitting on the drawing board than exist in the real world when we need them now the most. Air launched nuclear armed cruise missiles would be the ideal platform but there are not enough of them. IRBMs could have dumped huge numbers of warheads into the skies over Russia if they hadn't all been decommissioned. The only available option would be to use SLBMs but doing so would compromise second strike capacity although blunting an enemy first strike would minimize the need for a massive second strike.
X-37b mounted with laser?
Charged particle beams. Very different from Lasers. The wildcard is subs , they can launch from anywhere, even under ice.
@@lgmx-peacekeeper3204 that would literally cause more harm than the actual nuke hitting it's target
Please do a video about russian Hypersonic missiles . Khinzal , avangard
I work for a company and we handle THAAD component. It makes me proud to think im helping protect American
I think you let out two very big further complications. First, some of the MIRVs could exploit in the space or at the beginning of the reentry phase effectively blinding the radar or infrared camera by outshining the other MIRVs or creating an area opaque to these waves as the result of atmospheric ionization. Second, you could obliterate a first world country with a single warhead without directly hitting a single city, by exploding a nuclear weapon in the space to create an electromagnetic pulse.
Obliterate is not the right word. More like, cripple. A nuclear detonation in space wouldn't even break a single window on the ground below it. What it would do is take out much of the electrical grid and many electronic devices. Although it would bring that country's economy to a stand-still and create chaos (and eventually death to many), it would not stop a nuclear-armed country from retaliating since those nuclear assets are shielded from an electromagnetic pulse by their design and construction. Any nuke possessing country hitting an enemy nuke possessing country with a high altitude EMP strike would (and should) anticipate not just a retaliation in kind, but a retaliation including massive ground strikes. The idea of a strategic nuclear attack involves causing damage that the enemy nation will not be able to recover from - and an EMP strike can be recovered from. So the retaliation would have to be more severe by the second-strike nation. No nuclear exchange would ever be limited to just high altitude EMP strikes unless the target of the strike was a non-nuclear nation who couldn't retaliate and who also wasn't allied with a nuclear nation who could retaliate on their behalf.
I don't think so. You won't have enough energy for both of your theories.
"How many nuclear missiles can the United States intercept?"
Not enough. We really are more vulnerable than we like to think.
Primary reason why the US wouldn’t challenge Russia or China directly, unless they can use Ukraine or Taiwan to place interceptors. Suddenly everything happening today makes sense.
perhaps destroy inbound MIRV vehicle, w/ outbound low yield nuclear warhead? vastly improve probability of kill.
Personally, I rather like the idea of adapting the scrapped laser project into a last line of defense to destroy any incoming missiles that manage to make it through the rest of the system.
@@edwinvargas7969 that kinda does huh place interceptors as close as possible best to enemies. Launch ur own nukes to annihilate the enemy stop their nukes bam problem solved world domination victory
@@edwinvargas7969 yeah thats the entire reason why they have been trying to get ukraine and taiwan under their finger tips
Thank you for including the statement at the end about classified information. As someone who has worked on one of these programs, its infuriating to watch youtubers use 20 year old data and act like its current.
You won't see what our missile defense system can really do unless we have to use it. It will likely surprise you.
true i think army tek is at least 10 15 years ahead of whats known in public in this case rogue countries wont be a threat even with 10 20 ICBM but will be always usless against hundreds of them
I hope so for both sides. Im hoping the people of Russia and America both dont get turned to ash from stupid politicians being stupid.
@Milo Jones true just an opinion on lasers as many experiments failed for the obivious reason that air surface waste most of its energy so lasers technology inside earth atmosphere should be very limited now but who knows what they can do in space got a feeling that most of new satellites got some kidn of weopon on them
@Milo Jones by fail i dont mean the fact of creating laser beams wich they have already done it on airplanes with chemical lasers but the tests prouved their range is only a dozens of kilometrs (practical range should be at least 400-500 km) wich make it usless as u dont expect such a big plane to fly in hostil airspace without getting shot down while its waiting for an icbm launch
@Milo Jones as far as i know in physics (as an engineer) either ways even if they find a solution for defration they still have the major problem of earth curve wich was the official reason for giving up on the project as i stated above unless they can destroy icbm from long range this solution wont be practical
and u seem to misunderstood something when i say laser its for simplification not that i mean it exactely. They can use any kind of method its always some kind of ray, radio frequency,beam whatever u call it they all go in straight line wich make it almost impossiible to hit an exact location from very long range
Yep but we're coming up with another way of stopping their missles laser and space based weapons along with Thad intercepters
I always thought the first target would be the satellites, prior to or shortly before the launch of the icbm. This would obviously make tracking much harder.
Russia tested one recently… I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.
If they hit satellites the other party would have no way of knowing if there's a hundred warheads coming at their way so they would fire theirs too.
Take in mind that satellites are a pretty easy target: their orbits are well known and they can be disabled just by being hit with hundreds of metal balls. Of course, those need to be delivered to the orbit, but thats no big deal really
without the satellites They are 100 years back in time
@@rooblez9005 "they"? 🤔🤔
Well made, thank you. Hopefully these nukes just stay as deterance as they are today
Hope is not a plan....
Very good
One major factor that has been portrayed in movies is the chain of command, the inept, geriatric bureaucracy. I don't know the exact chain but if one looks at how most Govt Agencies have performed under national emergencies when timely decisions are needed, they get a fat F. Hopefully the military, Space Command, Airforce and others don't fail us.
I'm sure Joe Biden would be 100% sharp and lucid in the ten minutes he'd have to decide whether to unleash hundreds of nuclear warheads.
Read the book, " COMMAND and CONTROL " and you'll see how badly our so called military communications system functions in the many tests performed over the decades. If our's is this bad, certainly Russia's is far worse yet a recipe for disaster ! The book also covers the Damascus Incident of a Titan ll I.C.B.M. maintenance accident which revealed how badly the entire affair was handled by top military brass and narrowly escaping a massive nuke detonation of the largest warhead the U.S. ever deployed !
Super on point, and without even going into the ferocity and scale of nuclear bombs.
Which could've been interesting. Such as how do we know which ones are carrying 14 70 KT warheads, or which are carrying 5 10 MT warheads.
Or that the satellites and ground vehicles may be inoperable in the case of a single warhead detonating on the rim of the atmosphere.
Moral of the story when regarding nukes is always, "Lets just not, please?"
Maybe the west should of thought twice about the whole " I stand with Russia thing"
@@todgerx what "I stand with Russia thing"?
Hardly, all of that is nuclear hardened. Do you really think the engineers just missed that requirement? There were missiles and guidance systems done in the 60's that would survive a CLOSE nuclear EMP.
@@MrJdsenior I mean theres only so much you can harden certain things. Especially satellites because hardening them would make them heavy as hell.
Also I wasn't necessarily saying the vehicles carrying the the missile systems, just vehicles in general.
@@ninjabiatch101 You are misunderstanding, I am talking about electronics hardening to nuclear EMP, answering a specific question. And yes, general vehicles, cars, trucks, etc would definitely get whacked within a certain range. You put enough volts/meter in a small enough circuit feature size, and it probably won't be happy.
If it comes down to it, let's hope the Russian ICBM's are as effective as their ground force operations
Those are chechyen and contract soldiers, Russia is not at war with ukraine
nukes are expensive to build and maintain, there military budget goes towards the nukes
@@picasoj5944 There is no war in Ba Sing Se
And what about Russiam ground operations? Russia with disadvantage in numbers ( around 120k russians vs approximatly 250-300k ukranian soldiers ) are getting more and more ukranian soil. At the same time not a single one ukranian soldier get to even russian border. Not to mention tremendous amount of weapons send by NATO to help Ukraine. Its a proxy war of whole nato by hands of ukranians versus russia. Which is not good for ukrainians that they let themself in that situation. The very first mistake of any war is underestimate your enemy.
@@Alpanzai Russia has lost almost half of the ground they had taken, also Ukraine has been carrying out air attacks on Russia bases on the Russian side of the border.
I think the high speed faster jet fighter than the icbm is the only option counter to the icbm when intercept the icbm in radar
"For what can one nation hope to achieve if the world plunges into conflict and deprivation? Nations of the world are far too interdependent now to choose the path of war and conflict without bringing ruin and deprivation to everyone. United, you have a great chance. Divided, you will fail. And your failure will be longstanding, and it will be extremely costly-greater than any war that has ever occurred in this world will it be, more devastating than any human conflict that humanity has ever known." A quote from the Great Waves of Change book written by Marshall Vian Summers (a must read!)
A great read!
Thank you, Mara.