>an ICBM has the reentry velocity of 4 mi./s

>an ICBM has the reentry velocity of 4 mi./s

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I can pee at 4 miles a second

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous
    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous
  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Think about how fast that can go straight up Putin's ass.

    Take that browns, and get off my board.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It’s a cheek seeking missile?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        wide

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Think about how fast it could flatten Kiev.
      Get off my board you stinky not-Russian mooches.
      >Implying Slavs are white

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Try and think about that, though it’s unbelievably fast it’s amazing that we have these weapons. The people that engineered them are very talented

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The thing I don't get it is how they ground burst them, now that I'm thinking about it they can't possibly actually strike the ground because there's no way anything could survive that collision, so I guess they just detonate really close to the ground? How tf do you get these things to go off at exactly the right time when they are going lightspeed like that

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >so I guess they just detonate really close to the ground?
        Yep, the 30-metre (100ft) Trinity shot tower was simulating a "ground burst", air bursts are 100 to 1000 meters depending on yeild.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        They probably use the most precise altimeters R&D can buy

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It would be funny to launch an ICBM without a payload, then purposely detonate it before reentry. Just to make your enemy panic for a few minutes then be confused when the target is lost. Then just kinda do that randomly now and then, keep 'em on their toes

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Based mutually assured destruction initiator

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >3 billion people died because of a little trolling
        It would be a good meme for the history books.

        That's why I said just one, they wouldn't launch everything in retaltion over one. Like that time the Soviet radar operator didn't report tracking inbounds because he figured if war was starting the US would be sending way more. It would blow up well before apogee

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      cheeky banter

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >3 billion people died because of a little trolling
      It would be a good meme for the history books.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There's not 3 billion people in russia and china, and I don't know why we'd nuke india too but frick it I'm down.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >I don't know why we'd nuke india too
          Why the frick not? Targets to nuke in order of importance
          >Tel Aviv
          >Jerusalem
          >Beijing
          >All of India
          >D.C.
          >N.Y.C
          >San Francisco

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Mecca is not on the list
            Come the frick on, it's like you hate fun.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    And nothing can stop them because they use multiple of them + decoys
    Russia has 6000 nukes. Most of them inside submarines around the world near all the west countries. So you should think all the stupid moves your politicians are doing supporting certain country right now.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      and the us doesnt have the same exact thing going on around russia/china? lol

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What if after decades of threats and weekly threats for the last 2 years I just don't believe Russia will ever launch now?
      I unironically think Abrams could be rolling down the red square while the Mausoleo de Lenin burned without a launch.

      There's not 3 billion people in russia and china, and I don't know why we'd nuke india too but frick it I'm down.

      60s and 70s estimates with ~30% of the global population so I just went with that. This is long term including starvation.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Those are 1980's soviet union stats.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Russia has 6000 nukes. Most of them inside submarines around the world near all the west countries.
      Literally every word here is a lie.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Not at all.
        We can't detect russian subs.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          There's no "we", pidor. russian subs are only good for one thing - killing their crews.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          reminder that russian subs need recovery and rescue shis going everywhere with them because they sink so often

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          This isn't Red October. I guarantee that either a US or Royal Navy hunter-killer is tracking every deployed Russian SSBN.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          We?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >6000 nukes
      The soviet union had like 50k nukes at it's peak. Right now it has only 2500 active nukes. The us has 3500 active nukes and only 400 of those are icbms. Most nukes come from subs. China will have a 1000 in a few years.

      The US has 44 anti ICMBs that can destroy the ICBM in the outer atmosphere before they can deploy their MIRVs. These aren't to counter russia or china but smaller states like best korea and iran. A nuclear launched can be detected by satellites within seconds and there are multiple long range radar sites in states like colorado and alaska. Building a shit ton of anti-icbms would just create another arms race.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Building a shit ton of anti-icbms would just create another arms race.
        Yeah but that'd be really cool

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Aren't anti-ICBMs useless?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          no? One was tested a couple of years ago and was successful in intercepting an icbm in outer atmosphere. If you blow up the icbm you destroy the warheads will never be armed.

          There's just not that many of them to stop a full attack. They are meant only to stop a few ICBMs fired from someone like north korea, not russia or china.

          >Right now it has only 2500 active nukes. The us has 3500 active nukes and only 400 of those are icbms. Most nukes come from subs. China will have a 1000 in a few years.
          That's incorrect. Most nukes are graity bombs, not ICBM warheads. Neither russia not china put a big portion of their nukes on subs, unlike US, and rely on land-based launchers instead. China builds a lot of silos but as for filling them with actual missiles it's another story, especially after the purges in the missile forces. It's definitely going to take them more than a few years to get there. Half as much warheads would be more realistic.
          >The US has 44 anti ICMBs that can destroy the ICBM
          SM-3 Block IIA is theoretically capable of intercepting ICBM-class targets and they're already in production at a rate of about adozen per year.
          >These aren't to counter russia or china but smaller states like best korea and iran.
          They are a great deterrent to both chinks and rusBlack folk because those interceptors act as a safety ward against a second strike that they might try to pull off if their nuke arsenal is under attack.
          >Building a shit ton of anti-icbms would just create another arms race.
          Arms races aren't all that bad. If you can force an economically inferior enemy to spend more to try achieve parity with you then you still weaken them economically as a result if the tradeoff is good, that's how the cold war was won. With interceptors vs MIRV-ed ICBMs the tradeoff is pretty bad but considering the tiny size russian economy and the further strain that their war is causing them it may still be worthwhile. The politics of this are a different matter but interceptors are much more acceptable than nukes here as well.

          >china builds a lot of silos but as for filling them with actual missiles
          They don't have 1000 yet but will by 2030. Whether they are ICBMs or gravity bombs I don't know.
          >unlike US
          I was talking about US subs, not russia or china. Russian and Chinese subs are shit and would probably get spotted anywhere close to the shore. It's classified and unknown how many nukes any one sub is carrying for the US.
          >Arms races aren't all that bad
          The more nukes in the world the worse off we are. If we build 1000 anti-icbms, that just means the enemy will build 2000 icbms. Making us build more anti-icbms and them building even more icbms. The end result is still more nukes. There was a treaty signed that limited either side two anti nuke sites to prevent this very scenario from happening.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >It's classified and unknown how many nukes any one sub is carrying for the US.
            Treaty limitations are public, Ohois are restricted to 20 launch tubes with each missile meant to carry no more than 4 warheads according to START-III. With 2/3rds of 14 US subs typically on patrol you get around 720 warheads on the ready, probably fewer since the subs in port also count for the treaty but possibly more since a Trident II can fit up to 14 warheads and russians formally dropped the treaty last year. I wonder if the 4 remaining tubes on each can be reactivated too. It's pretty much theoretical, though. US have no reason for a nuclear buildup just because the missile subs have found themselves with a lot of available space. There are 4 British Vanguard subs that carry 16 Tridents each too.
            >Whether they are ICBMs or gravity bombs I don't know.
            This is a big deal. Gravity bombs are worthless for a nuclear conflict with US and NATO, which is typically the main purpose of nuclear forces of boisterous upstarts like russia and china since neither of them has stealth bombers capable of reaching US. In china's case they don't even have a bomber capable of reaching US at all unless they air refuel with a one way trip.
            >If we build 1000 anti-icbms, that just means the enemy will build 2000 icbms.
            Chinks are the only nation that could even theoretically approach that, and so far they're at least a decade away from reaching parity with US&russia(at least on paper) in terms of deployed nukes that are actually relevant, i.e. ICBMs and long range SLBMs, the latter of which are only theorised for china to have. They'd need to scale up their nuclear production massively and it takes a whole lot of time unless they get russia to do the dirty job for them.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          An American Arrow 3 successfully performed an exoatmospheric interception against an Iranian ICBM just last month.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Iranian ICBM

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Right now it has only 2500 active nukes. The us has 3500 active nukes and only 400 of those are icbms. Most nukes come from subs. China will have a 1000 in a few years.
        That's incorrect. Most nukes are graity bombs, not ICBM warheads. Neither russia not china put a big portion of their nukes on subs, unlike US, and rely on land-based launchers instead. China builds a lot of silos but as for filling them with actual missiles it's another story, especially after the purges in the missile forces. It's definitely going to take them more than a few years to get there. Half as much warheads would be more realistic.
        >The US has 44 anti ICMBs that can destroy the ICBM
        SM-3 Block IIA is theoretically capable of intercepting ICBM-class targets and they're already in production at a rate of about adozen per year.
        >These aren't to counter russia or china but smaller states like best korea and iran.
        They are a great deterrent to both chinks and rusBlack folk because those interceptors act as a safety ward against a second strike that they might try to pull off if their nuke arsenal is under attack.
        >Building a shit ton of anti-icbms would just create another arms race.
        Arms races aren't all that bad. If you can force an economically inferior enemy to spend more to try achieve parity with you then you still weaken them economically as a result if the tradeoff is good, that's how the cold war was won. With interceptors vs MIRV-ed ICBMs the tradeoff is pretty bad but considering the tiny size russian economy and the further strain that their war is causing them it may still be worthwhile. The politics of this are a different matter but interceptors are much more acceptable than nukes here as well.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >The US has 44 anti ICMBs that can destroy the ICBM in the outer atmosphere before they can deploy their MIRVs.
        These are useless and have failed miserably when tested. Most Russian nooks would probably fail at launch but you only need one to work, that's the whole point.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Right now it has only 2500 active nukes.
        I'm going to assume you mean strategic warheads. The bottleneck in Russia's arsenal is launch vehicles. Examine picrel and keep in mind that two of the SSNs are in overhaul at any one time.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >I will nooooooooooook but for realsies this time!

      Put up or shut up, b***h boy.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      morning ivan
      sounds like you got an extra ration today.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Nooks

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Holy shit baitposting got so easy in the last 2 years. It used to take a 3+ post set-up and multiple paragraphs of well-researched disinformation to get more than 5 (you)s. Now you just have to post the most obviously false info about Russia, word it like a zigger, and boom. Double digits.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      your submarines work? whens the last time one of them left drydock as anything but scrap?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Most of them inside submarines around the world near all the west countries.
      So does the US, UK and France.

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >4 mi./s
    how much is that in real units?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      About 3 stone i guess

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      14400 miles per hour or Mach 18.75
      That is actually on the low end for modern missiles.

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    here is a visualization and realization for you

    approx 30 seconds from reentry to shit went to mexico

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I once wrote a fully automated script in KSP+RO for a trident 2 copy I built. The hardest part was getting the proper BC for the warhead calculated and that thing enters the atmosphere so fast that you don't need any terminal guidance. As long as you aim good with the base the warhead hits within 500m. the g forces also change drastically depending on the angle of reentry and there is a very delicate balance you have to strike to not over g the warhead but not to shallow so that the warhead reaches terminal velocity.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Also all this makes the distance to target very important before launch. because of the solid propellant, you have to choose a trajectory very carefully. Also the PID loops have to be very advanced as the thrust and changes in projected impact location change very non linearly. The code they wrote in the cold war must have been fascinating.

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    And any maneuver reduces the speed drastically. Just spam it with AA in the upper stratosphere.

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >an ICBM has the reentry velocity of 4 mi./s

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *