User Panel
Quoted: Submarines laugh at EMP. I don't live in a submarine. Also, the Ruskies retired the high altitude EMP version of the R-36 in 2009 anyway if I remember right. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Their sea launched stuff may suck , but they have the only in the world mobile launchers. Chinese MRBMs excepted. From my understanding China, NK, Pakistan and India all have srbm and mrbm mobile launchers. Russian mobile launch technology is FAR beyond what we have. When was the last time we test fired one of our missiles by using it to put satellites in orbit? Russia sure has. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This wasn't really the point of the article, but thought it was inderasting. Putin is on the list for the Chinese "Confucius" Peace Prize. His comment at dinner was that " Russia can destroy the U.S. in a half hour or less." WTF, really, since when. What dose he mean? Kinetic military strikes, economics, diseased russian whores. Link Not meaning this in an insulting way, but how old are you? We didn't have the worlds longest staring contest with the russian bear for no reason afterall. Mid 20's. I understand that part of it, i just thought between our newer tech and anti missle systems that those older ICBM's wouldn't be that effective. Just so OP doesn't feel so alone, I'll admit that as a young person I didn't really appreciate that Russia could strike as far south as Texas by firing from the north, across Canada, until I saw some old ass 70's movie about a supercomputer that went nuts and tried to take over the world. Name of the movie was "Colossus" I think. I think most people envision the missiles lumbering across the Pacific and giving us plenty of time to spot them. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_hintbDCSmZM/RehUVa9UV_I/AAAAAAAAAA8/ttEB7nuMW4w/s320/arctic.gif Kinda weird to think about kids growing up now a days not even realizing that the Russians could nuke us off the map. Sure we could hit them back, and nuke them to the stone age. But if they launched first, well.......America is going to have a real bad day. Weird.....it just seems so damn foreign to not realize that. Nukes....how the frak do they work....? |
|
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Their sea launched stuff may suck , but they have the only in the world mobile launchers. Chinese MRBMs excepted. From my understanding China, NK, Pakistan and India all have srbm and mrbm mobile launchers. Russian mobile launch technology is FAR beyond what we have. When was the last time we test fired one of our missiles by using it to put satellites in orbit? Russia sure has. Proof to backup that claim OR BAN |
|
Quoted: Obama wants a nuclear free world. I personally like MAD. I'd like a nuclear weapon-free world, too, but I'm not so foolish enough as to actually think such a thing is possible when there are still plenty of people in the world who desire power enough to kill their fellow man for it! I might as well wish to be 10 feet tall and hung like an elephant. None of the above are going to happen during my lifetime! CJ |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Submarines laugh at EMP. I don't live in a submarine. Also, the Ruskies retired the high altitude EMP version of the R-36 in 2009 anyway if I remember right. You realize of course all it takes to make a high altitude EMP is to adjust your fuzing? You don't need a special version of the missle. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Their sea launched stuff may suck , but they have the only in the world mobile launchers. Chinese MRBMs excepted. From my understanding China, NK, Pakistan and India all have srbm and mrbm mobile launchers. Russian mobile launch technology is FAR beyond what we have. When was the last time we test fired one of our missiles by using it to put satellites in orbit? Russia sure has. Proof to backup that claim OR BAN Have you ever seen mobile US launchers? We have one , it doesn't work and it's in the front lawn of Wright Patterson AFB. Russia has been selling their mobile launchers for years (remember SCUDs?) to plenty of countries. We might look down on them , but Russians aren't completely stupid. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Obama wants a nuclear free world. I personally like MAD. I'd like a nuclear weapon-free world, too, but I'm not so foolish enough as to actually think such a thing is possible when there are still plenty of people in the world who desire power enough to kill their fellow man for it! I might as well wish to be 10 feet tall and hung like an elephant. None of the above are going to happen during my lifetime! CJ I wouldn't like a nuclear weapon free world. I'd like to be armed with the greatest, most destructive and devastating weapons at all times, so me and mine, my country and my allies could feel safe. Even if there wasn't any obvious threat to our existence, EVEN if there wasn't another nuclear armed alliance against us in the world. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Their sea launched stuff may suck , but they have the only in the world mobile launchers. Chinese MRBMs excepted. From my understanding China, NK, Pakistan and India all have srbm and mrbm mobile launchers. Russian mobile launch technology is FAR beyond what we have. When was the last time we test fired one of our missiles by using it to put satellites in orbit? Russia sure has. Proof to backup that claim OR BAN Show me a single mobile launcher we have. We have one , it doesn't work and it's in the front lawn of Wright Patterson AFB. Russia has been selling their mobile launchers for years (remember SCUDs?) to plenty of countries. We might look down on them , but Russians aren't completely stupid. oops I didn't see the mobile part. I thought you meant russian missiles were far beyond us missiles. my bad. |
|
Quoted:
Their sea launched stuff may suck , but they have the best in the world mobile launchers. Which was essential for them, because of the first point of your post. they have the SS25 because its their ONLY real 2nd strike deterrant. And it isn't that good. Throw weight is shit. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Their sea launched stuff may suck , but they have the best in the world mobile launchers. Which was essential for them, because of the first point of your post. they have the SS25 because its their ONLY real 2nd strike deterrant. And it isn't that good. Throw weight is shit. yay Sylvan is here to tell us how we're all wrong |
|
Quoted:
Russian mobile launch technology is FAR beyond what we have. Considering we don't have land mobile ICBMs that's not saying much. When was the last time we test fired one of our missiles by using it to put satellites in orbit? Russia sure has. That's a stupid way to test your missle as it doesn't tell you how it will perform in it's primary mission. Wanna bet a year's salary we've not only test fire our missles more recently but we have test launches more often? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Their sea launched stuff may suck , but they have the best in the world mobile launchers. Which was essential for them, because of the first point of your post. they have the SS25 because its their ONLY real 2nd strike deterrant. And it isn't that good. Throw weight is shit. Throw weight isn't everything and only matters when you can't hit your target. And stuff. They've got the Topol, Topol M, and now the RS-24 these days, which all comprise the 'SS25' family if that's how you choose to look at it I guess. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Russian mobile launch technology is FAR beyond what we have. Considering we don't have land mobile ICBMs that's not saying much. When was the last time we test fired one of our missiles by using it to put satellites in orbit? Russia sure has. That's a stupid way to test your missle as it doesn't tell you how it will perform in it's primary mission. Wanna bet a year's salary we've not only test fire our missles more recently but we have test launches more often? share more, if unclassified |
|
Quoted:
obama did it in three seconds "Change Has Come To Amerika" |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This wasn't really the point of the article, but thought it was inderasting. Putin is on the list for the Chinese "Confucius" Peace Prize. His comment at dinner was that " Russia can destroy the U.S. in a half hour or less." WTF, really, since when. What dose he mean? Kinetic military strikes, economics, diseased russian whores. Link Not meaning this in an insulting way, but how old are you? We didn't have the worlds longest staring contest with the russian bear for no reason afterall. Mid 20's. I understand that part of it, i just thought between our newer tech and anti missle systems that those older ICBM's wouldn't be that effective. What anti-missile systems? Airborn laser is dead, Star wars is on hold - other than some theater BM defense and a little Navy capability - we gots nuttin. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Submarines laugh at EMP. I don't live in a submarine. Also, the Ruskies retired the high altitude EMP version of the R-36 in 2009 anyway if I remember right. You realize of course all it takes to make a high altitude EMP is to adjust your fuzing? You don't need a special version of the missle. Right, but that particular version of the R-36 was apparently designed specifically for that purpose, with a 20 MT warhead. Theoretically this is indicative of a change in doctrine for them. Or an advance in technology. |
|
Quoted:
[Have you ever seen mobile US launchers? We have one , it doesn't work and it's in the front lawn of Wright Patterson AFB. No we don't have one. We looked at the idea (you saw was a test) but decided against it. BTW have you seen our Pershing II IRBMs mobil launchers? Or our GLCM mobil launchers? No? Why not? Perhaps it's because our stuff was so DAMN GOOD it's scared the willys out of old Ivan and he was willing to give up his IRBMs if we would give up ours (even though he had more). Russia has been selling their mobile launchers for years (remember SCUDs?) to plenty of countries.
Wait you were serious? The SCUD has to be one of the crappiest missles ever fielded. Poor capacity and even worse accuracy. It's a terror weapon for use against civilians, it's not a serious military weapon. You want a serious ground attack rocket - call up an MLRS battery or get a TLAM. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Their sea launched stuff may suck , but they have the best in the world mobile launchers. Which was essential for them, because of the first point of your post. they have the SS25 because its their ONLY real 2nd strike deterrant. And it isn't that good. Throw weight is shit. Throw weight isn't everything and only matters when you can't hit your target. And stuff. They've got the Topol, Topol M, and now the RS-24 these days, which all comprise the 'SS25' family if that's how you choose to look at it I guess. Which the soviets still can't do. the problem with a road mobile system is you are total system limited, and hence, throw weight limited. SLBMs have a short range and a good throw weight because of that. Because the soviets never had confidence in their submarines lasting longer than 5 minutes, they needed another retalitory capability, so they shit the SS25. Its a horrible compromise because their submarine force was never trustworthy as a true second strike capability. Keep swinging tough guy. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: [Have you ever seen mobile US launchers? We have one , it doesn't work and it's in the front lawn of Wright Patterson AFB. No we don't have one. We looked at the idea (you saw was a test) but decided against it. The Peacekeeper 'rail garrisons' were only not deployed due to the end of the cold war and cost, not because the doctrine of mobile ICBMs is inherently flawed. You know this. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This wasn't really the point of the article, but thought it was inderasting. Putin is on the list for the Chinese "Confucius" Peace Prize. His comment at dinner was that " Russia can destroy the U.S. in a half hour or less." WTF, really, since when. What dose he mean? Kinetic military strikes, economics, diseased russian whores. Link Not meaning this in an insulting way, but how old are you? We didn't have the worlds longest staring contest with the russian bear for no reason afterall. Mid 20's. I understand that part of it, i just thought between our newer tech and anti missle systems that those older ICBM's wouldn't be that effective. What anti-missile systems? Airborn laser is dead, Star wars is on hold - other than some theater BM defense and a little Navy capability - we gots nuttin. Uh, GMD? Its inventory limited, but its a lot more than theater missile defense which is what the navy system is. we do have an ICBM defensive capability that is operational. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[Have you ever seen mobile US launchers? We have one , it doesn't work and it's in the front lawn of Wright Patterson AFB. No we don't have one. We looked at the idea (you saw was a test) but decided against it. The Peacekeeper 'rail garrisons' were only not deployed due to the end of the cold war and cost, not because the doctrine of mobile ICBMs is inherently flawed. You know this. Its not flawed, but for us, it wasn't necesssary. We already had a valid mobile nuclear capability. the soviets did not. |
|
Quoted: the problem with a road mobile system is you are total system limited, and hence, throw weight limited. Either throw weight matters or it doesn't. We've already determined it doesn't. Its funny how when Russia has a high throw weight missile, its because it sucks, and when they have to compromise on throw weight, its also because it sucks. ETA: Not much is known about the RS-24 yet, but most information suggests its MIRVs have a higher total combined yield than those of a Minuteman III, despite also being mobile. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russian mobile launch technology is FAR beyond what we have. Considering we don't have land mobile ICBMs that's not saying much. When was the last time we test fired one of our missiles by using it to put satellites in orbit? Russia sure has. That's a stupid way to test your missle as it doesn't tell you how it will perform in it's primary mission. Wanna bet a year's salary we've not only test fire our missles more recently but we have test launches more often? share more, if unclassified I won't share dates, but this is from an open source and will give you an idea of the scope of the testing program: On November 29th, 2007 the U.S. Navy conducted a successful test launch of a Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM) built by Lockheed Martin. The Navy launched the unarmed missile from the submerged submarine USS HENRY M JACKSON (SSBN 730) in the Pacific Ocean. The Trident II D5 missile had achieved 120 consecutive successful test launches since 1989 - a record unmatched by any other large ballistic missile or space launch vehicle. The missile launch was part of the Demonstration and Shakedown Operation (DASO) to certify USS HENRY M JACKSON for deployment, following a shipyard overhaul period and conversion from Trident I C4 to Trident II D5 configuration. The Navy performs tests to assure the safety, reliability, readiness and performance of the Trident II D5 Strategic Weapon System, as required by the Department of Defense's National Command Authority and conducted under the testing guidelines of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. For the tests, operational missiles are converted into inert configurations using test missile kits produced by Lockheed Martin that contain range safety devices and flight telemetry instrumentation.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/d-5-recent.htm |
|
Quoted:
the doctrine of mobile ICBMs is inherently flawed. You know this. I don't know, it works pretty good for the Navy |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
M.A.D. This has been true since the 1960s. The door swings both ways. Not with the coward we have now as president. Coward? How do you come up with that? I don't like him but he has done a lot of stuff others in our party didn't and said they wouldn't do. He maybe fucking up the economy but a coward he isn't. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
the problem with a road mobile system is you are total system limited, and hence, throw weight limited. Either throw weight matters or it doesn't. We've already determined it doesn't. Its funny how when Russia has a high throw weight missile, its because it sucks, and when they have to compromise on throw weight, its also because it sucks. ETA: Not much is known about the RS-24 yet, but most information suggests its MIRVs have a higher total yield than those of a Minuteman III, despite also being mobile. Its funny because you can't figure out WHY throw weight matters. A silo based system has essentially no limitations other than cost. The soviets went big because they lacked the inertial accuracy. Despite the fact we had the same freedom, we went with smaller warheads. The SS25 has shit throw weight because it HAS to. Not because of some superior soviet technology. Because of the cost of mobile systems over static, you want to max the capability of each system. thats why you have 12 or more RVs on each D5 to maximize the capabilities for the cost. we get that throw weight because our submarines can get close enough to compensate for the short range. Soviets can't play that game because their road mobile systems are limited geographically. do you really not get this or are you just incapable of admitting you are wrong? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russian mobile launch technology is FAR beyond what we have. Considering we don't have land mobile ICBMs that's not saying much. When was the last time we test fired one of our missiles by using it to put satellites in orbit? Russia sure has. That's a stupid way to test your missle as it doesn't tell you how it will perform in it's primary mission. Wanna bet a year's salary we've not only test fire our missles more recently but we have test launches more often? share more, if unclassified The one not-shitty thing about being here in CA. Get to watch our birds on there way to the south Pacific every few months. Sometimes more often than that. Launch dates The amount of shit that NRO and NSA fling up there is scary. They REALLY like there birds. |
|
Quoted:
The one not-shitty thing about being here in CA. Get to watch our birds on there way to the south Pacific every few months. Sometimes more often than that. Launch dates The amount of shit that NRO and NSA fling up there is scary. They REALLY like there birds. That's AF stuff, I'll let Lima-Xray talk about that as he know more about MM3 testing than I do. The Navy does not publicly publish it's test dates and launches are done at sea. |
|
Quoted:
Uh, GMD? Its inventory limited, but its a lot more than theater missile defense which is what the navy system is. we do have an ICBM defensive capability that is operational. My understaning, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we have the capacity to stop a "rouge nation" launch - not a Russian attack. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh, GMD? Its inventory limited, but its a lot more than theater missile defense which is what the navy system is. we do have an ICBM defensive capability that is operational. My understaning, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we have the capacity to stop a "rouge nation" launch - not a Russian attack. Yep |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh, GMD? Its inventory limited, but its a lot more than theater missile defense which is what the navy system is. we do have an ICBM defensive capability that is operational. My understaning, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we have the capacity to stop a "rouge nation" launch - not a Russian attack. Our capability is fairly well known, but it is between the two extremes you mention. |
|
Quoted:
M.A.D. This has been true since the 1960s. The door swings both ways. And the exact reason Russia is pissy about Missile Defense...it isn't mutual if we can counter their launches. |
|
|
Quoted: as you mentioned i think this is as good as it gets for nowQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: This wasn't really the point of the article, but thought it was inderasting. Putin is on the list for the Chinese "Confucius" Peace Prize. His comment at dinner was that " Russia can destroy the U.S. in a half hour or less." WTF, really, since when. What dose he mean? Kinetic military strikes, economics, diseased russian whores. Link Not meaning this in an insulting way, but how old are you? We didn't have the worlds longest staring contest with the russian bear for no reason afterall. Mid 20's. I understand that part of it, i just thought between our newer tech and anti missle systems that those older ICBM's wouldn't be that effective. What anti-missile systems? Airborn laser is dead, Star wars is on hold - other than some theater BM defense and a little Navy capability - we gots nuttin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System |
|
If Russian ICBMs are as reliable and accurate as the rest of their shit, there's gonna be a lot of dead missiles falling into the Canadian tundra when they try to nuke us.
Bring it on, Putey. |
|
Quoted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/THAAD_Launcher.jpg As far as I know, THAAD doesn't have the capability to counter ICBMs. Reentry speeds and all that shit, Forest could probably explain it better. But realistically, SRBMs and MRBMs are the biggest threat in the foreseeable future anyway.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/THAAD_Launcher.jpg As far as I know, THAAD doesn't have the capability to counter ICBMs. Reentry speeds and all that shit, Forest could probably explain it better. But realistically, SRBMs and MRBMs are the biggest threat in the foreseeable future anyway. SRBMs and MRBMs are irrelevant to the subject here, as they don't threaten the US. Our only ICBM counter is GMD at this point. |
|
Quoted: This wasn't really the point of the article, but thought it was inderasting. Putin is on the list for the Chinese "Confucius" Peace Prize. His comment at dinner was that " Russia can destroy the U.S. in a half hour or less." WTF, really, since when. What dose he mean? Kinetic military strikes, economics, diseased russian whores. Link Nuclear weapons and you really need to read more. Considering that our economy is teetering on the brink, then yes, they certainly have the capability to "Destroy" the US, even if only a couple hundred got through. Would our long term prospects actually improve? Maybe, but in the short term, The term "Destroyed" would be appropriate. |
|
What about something along the lines of a Club-K launch from near or in ports directed at high value targets? I don't see much that would defend against that sort of thing.
|
|
I don't even know where to begin.
First, MAD (as a stated doctrine) went out of style in the late 60s, as our weapons platforms got more accurate and we could afford to NOT carpet-bomb with nukes. New doctrine is actually one of "Flexible Response." Idea is that we will NOT go scorched-earth on our enemies, and will instead look for a minimum of escalation and respond with force that fits the threat. The issue with MAD was one of control & escalation––there was no reason for our adversaries to hold back under MAD, since we were planning on annihilating them on contact. Second––"Destroy the country in a half hour." FACT: Moscow Treaty of 2006 limited both sides to 1700-2200 operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons. Defined as A) mated reentry vehicles mounted on a bulkhead attached to an on-alert ICBM; B) mated reentry vehicles mounted on a bulkhead attached to an on-alert SLBM; and C) any air-dropped weapon stored on a bomber base. (Reason for the differences is it takes a couple of days to change the configuration of an IC or SL, but I can up/download a bomber in a matter of hours.) START III is going to reduce that even farther to 1550 ODSNWs. Both treaties have verification regimes in place to avoid cheating by the other side. Third––targeting. US and Soviet (now Russian) targeting strategies are counterforce, not countervalue. In other words, we don't target cities, and neither do they. We both target valid military targets in accordance with the laws of armed conflict. As a result, we'll take a lot of hits to the missile fields, for example, but Boston Harbor's not exactly a priority target anymore––the Russians just don't have the weapons to spare, given the need to go after fielded forces, command and control, etc. So, as I've posted in other threads, let's take the MAX # of weapons (2200) and assign an arbitrary yield of 1Mt for each (to make the math easy). Given ideal figures for blast radius, etc., the TOTAL amount of land of the United States (as a percentage) affected would be....... 6.5%. About 2/3s the size of the state of Montana. Leaves 94.5% of the nation's land area essentially untouched. (Fallout's too unpredictable to figure in these kind of rough calculations.) Not the end of the country. Still a LOT of land, infrastructure, farmer's fields, etc. surviving intact. Fallout's a problem for about three weeks directly, then an issue as it concentrates in the food chain. Command and control? Probably disrupted. Government functions? Federally jacked, locally no change. Power? Still going, for the most part. Plays well to the newsies, but not necessarily accurate. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The one not-shitty thing about being here in CA. Get to watch our birds on there way to the south Pacific every few months. Sometimes more often than that. Launch dates The amount of shit that NRO and NSA fling up there is scary. They REALLY like there birds. That's AF stuff, I'll let Lima-Xray talk about that as he know more about MM3 testing than I do. The Navy does not publicly publish it's test dates and launches are done at sea. About 3 a year, one from each base. They literally pick an ICBM on alert at random from each base, pull the RVs, pull the missile, fly it to Vandenberg AFB, install range-safety and telemetry, load some concrete bombs and let fly to see if it works. |
|
Quoted:
I wonder, if Russia were to launch all its ICBMs right now, and the US were to launch all its ICBMS right now, and for the sake of argument, presume that they were ALL targeted at isolated spots in the middle of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, what percentage of (A) Russian and (B) American missiles would fail to (C) reach its target, (D), even launch successfully, and (E) end up doing damage in its own country of origin? Of course, there IS no factual data on this, but my belief is that US launches would enjoy a CONSIDERABLY higher success rate in all categories than Russian launches. A great deal of former Soviet equipment and systems fell into a state of very serious disrepair in the years following the collapse of the Soviet union and were never restored to full capability, or in many cases, restored at all. CJ Minuteman on-alert rate is very, VERY close to 100%. Russian SRF is their cream of the crop. They are a stand-alone service (not part of their Army as most people believe) and are the only branch that was fully (okay, mostly) funded during the 90s and 2000s after the fall of the Soviet Union. While the Army was going without pay for months and was selling weapons to buy food, the SRF was sitting pretty. Their long-range aviation has always been a medium contender as far as skill/capabilities go, but REALLY took a beating after the fall of the USSR. Sub forces? Totally different story. Then again, the Soviets/Russians have always relied on their SRF as their main and second-strike deterrent forces. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Russia seems to have had a working orbital EMP weapon active since the 1960s. IIRC it is now non-nuclear, so they could use it to knock out or electric grid and military C3 without crossing the nuclear threshold. That means we would be powerless (no pun intended) to respond short of blindly launching all our ballistic missile submarine warheads. That is in direct opposition of our stated policy of retaliation only, with no first strike. And the continental military and US cities would be toast. Yes, a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System with a few EMP weapons takes less than 1 hour over the south pole and NORAD would be looking north. Already in orbit, one orbital EMP weapon burst could be followed up by an ICBM launch against military targets and/or our cities. I think blackmail and power trips are what the Russians like best. Let them rape the "Near Abroad", or else. Now we are cutting the military to save entitlements. Brilliant! How much of that is from Call of Duty? LOL |
|
Quoted: I don't even know where to begin. Thanks for that. I always enjoy your input in the nuke threads. The amount of ignorance that you need to correct from both ends of the spectrum is just astounding. To comment on what you said, even if only half of the warheads detonated, lets say 800, I think "Destroyed" would be an accurate description of the state of our Nation. Is there any way to verify that they aren't targeting population centers any more? Assuming that they choose to target military installations with 90% of their warheads, that still leaves 80 cities hit- give of take. When you consider how badly 9/11 or Katrina effected our economy and National Debt, it's pretty easy to see that something 80 times worse would result in some very bad things. Of course, it wouldn't result in the end of humanity or anything close to that, but it would change forever the nature and direction of our country. I guess the whole discussion hinges on the definition of the word "Destroyed" |
|
Quoted:
Sure...and they couldn't stop a Cessna flown from West Germany by a teenager from landing in Red Square.... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/MRust.jpg |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.