max steel wrote:Canada is usa sook puppet .
What about North Pole ? Will it help if we make an island like stuff to deploy those batteries .
As much i believe Russia have the best system of defense on the world..
I don't think Russia have a chance with their S-400 or S-500s or any other system based
on projectiles ,to stop a rain of Ballistic Missiles from space.. you could intercept a few of them..
but not many at same.. time.. specially because ICBMs today have from 8 to 12 warheads..
So to stop the attack of a single Ohio submarine.. with 24 trident missiles each one with 12 warheads and with many dozens decoys each missiles at least.. we are speaking about
24x12x12 = 3,456 interceptions that will be required to do for just 1 ohio attack ,in the case that all the missiles launched at same time and the decoys are identical on radars to the original ICBM missile.
All say , they way i look at this .. is that unless you do an early course or mid course interception ,(before an ICBM eject its warhead with decoys) the probabilities to stop
such attack is zero. Is almost impossible to defeat such attack, using hit to kill air defenses defenses. The same is true for Americans.. in my opinion , Neither Russia ,neither USA have
the capability to defend against a multi warhead ICBM on its final phase.. Unless you use a nuclear warhead ,but this nuclear attack could serve as a firewall to blind your own radars of any following attack from close distance.. will pass through the fire and hit its target..
From this point of view.. US have a major advantage than Russia ,because they have
mid course interceptors and they can move their defenses very close to Russian borders..
either with Europe ABM shield or in the east using its Navy aegis.. destroyers..
So this explain Russia Bomber patrols near US coast.. to have a better position of firing a missile avoiding US navy defenses. This also explain why US is concerned about cruise missiles
with nuclear bomb capabilities.. SM-3 defenses are useless against cruise missiles flying low..
and they can penetrate US airspace close enough to their last target.
This is why Russia needs militarization of space.. and develop S-400s and S-500s that work from space.. that will allow Russia to intercept missiles not only mid course but also early course too.. it will be a huge blow to US offensive capabilities.. Effectively early course interception
is significantly easier and even a lazer gun mounted of a satellite or a simple Barrel Bomb with TNT deployed near the flight path of the missile ,will take care of it.
Apparently Russia is moving in that direction with their new national space station. Putin Declares Russia Will Build Its Own Space Station by 2023
Instead of building so many useless surface warships ,that will NOT defend Russia in a nuclear
attack ,and maintain Soviets destroyers and Cruisers that cost a lot its operation ,Russia better take that money for a kick ass space defense station.. using a lazer gun or something like pantsirs gatlin gun in space to counter any ICBM and destroy its engines.. Nuclear weapons warheads to counter ICBM are not really needed. for mid course or earlier interception.. before warheads separates from the missile.
All said Moscow defenses will be next to useless no matter which system they invent..
a saturation attack will be impossible to stop at the final trajectory.. If the S-500
can intercept ballistic misisles at any altitude.. then deploying them at the borders of Russia
should be the key ..and try to do mid course interception. But for real peace of mind they need many satellites with anti ICBM capabiltities.. or several small space stations with rail guns or lazers will be nice. it will allow to shut down any ICBM as soon is climbing into space,where it cannot deploy its warheads or decoys.. and will be a major game changer..
Cruise missiles flying low can be a pain.. but they are much more easier to intercept with a network of defenses. than an ICBM on its final trajectory.. as Russia try to do.