It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian Missiles less threatening now

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
This is the Russians sabre rattling because they object to the placement of ABM batteries on their doorstep. The effectiveness of their arsenal isn't really diminished to any extent but they are trying to use the threat of a new nuclear arms race to get a policy change in NATO.

There is no magic shield protecting the USA or allied nations. Its wishful thinking.

Russia and the USA retain the capability to exterminate each others civilisations. The fact that it isn't talked about much these days hasn't altered the fact.




posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trillium

Originally posted by ScarletWitch
reply to post by Trillium
 


I am fairly certain, the first intercepts would be roughly half way between Russia and the US. Can you imagine the nervousness and worry, watching a computer screen, as blips are racing toward each other, knowing that life or certain death, depends on those blips.

I have seen some of the brightest minds in medicine, buckle under a stress test. Stress and nerves can wreak havoc on an otherwise unshakable mind.


Which put a high percentage off then right over Canada
ME

Only take ONE 5 to 10 over me head and I'm Toast.


That's what worries me too. Halfway between Russia and the USA, is Canada. The missile shield in that case isn't very protective. We wouldn't need to watch a computer screen, just go outside.

At least China would have better aim, and be able to keep Canada out of it. Other than dying off from residual radiation.
If the US pisses off Russia enough, Canada's gone.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup
This is the Russians sabre rattling because they object to the placement of ABM batteries on their doorstep. The effectiveness of their arsenal isn't really diminished to any extent but they are trying to use the threat of a new nuclear arms race to get a policy change in NATO.

There is no magic shield protecting the USA or allied nations. Its wishful thinking.

Russia and the USA retain the capability to exterminate each others civilisations. The fact that it isn't talked about much these days hasn't altered the fact.



nopes! Russians are genuinely sh***t scared now. 1990s saw the NATO encroach on their borders and now ABM on land and ships. Russians got reduced from Superpower to a Regional power in 1990s. Now they fear getting further reduced to a treatment of third world nation to be toyed and joyed with. Stupid Gorbahcov and Yeltsin types trusted the west in 1980s and are paying the price now. They do not have much room to move as their last trump card, the nuke missiles are nearly rendered cancelled out, if not immediately then in next 3-5 years.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by victor7
 


You are so very wrong, if the entire nuclear arsenal of the world was deployed and detonated in an air burst the fall out would decimate a majority of the earths population, the air currents would spread radioactive fall out all over the land and kill every living mammal, reptile and bird with in a month. The remainder of life would be insect or vegetation and even that would suffer severe consequences. The only hope for survival in such a situation would be that the fall out would drift and settle out at sea, and even then the consequences would be incredibly severe.

I introduce to you the Russian S.A.T.A.N. SS-18 in this old video. multiple guided warhead ICBM, 10 Nuclear warheads ranging from from small 1KT- to 50MgT warheads. on one missile...

youtu.be...

"As of July 2009, Russia's strategic arsenal reportedly shrunk to 2,723 warheads, including: 367 ICBMs with 1,248 warheads, 13 SSBNs with 591 warheads and 76 bombers with 884 warheads." these are the active estimated warheads as reported by wiki... There are probably more unknown warheads, and how long would it take to reactivate or produce more warheads. Wiki also said they estimate 3281 active strategic warheads... that's a pretty big jump in estimates in a few lines... That's only russia's arsenal.

Now on to the USA LGM-30 Minute Man III
youtu.be...

This is simply a quick ICBM search for US missiles, I'm sure there are more modern advanced delivery platforms today..

"The United States currently maintains an arsenal of 5,113 warheads[2][3] and facilities for their construction and design"

"Between 1945 and 1990, more than 70,000 total warheads were developed, in over 65 different varieties, ranging in yield from around .01 kilotons (such as the man-portable Davy Crockett shell) to the 25 megaton B41 bomb."

The current delivery systems of the U.S. makes virtually any part of the Earth's surface within the reach of its nuclear arsenal. Though its land-based missile systems have a maximum range of 10,000 kilometers (less than worldwide), its submarine-based forces extend its reach from a coastline 12,000 kilometers inland. Additionally, in-flight refueling of long-range bombers and the use of aircraft carriers extends the possible range virtually indefinitely.

Operational American strategic nuclear forces, 2009[37] Delivery Vehicles Warheads

(Multiple warheads.)Minuteman III W78/Mk12A 250 350
Minuteman III W87/Mk21 200 200
ICBM (total) 450 550
UGM-133A Trident II D-5 W76-0/Mk4 718
UGM-133A Trident II D-5 W76-1/Mk4A v288 ^ 50
UGM-133A Trident II D-5 W88/Mk5 384
SLBM (total) 288 1,152
B-2 20 na
B-52H 93 na
B61-7 na 150
ALCM/W80-1 na 350
Bomber force (total) 113 500
Strategic forces (total) 851 2,200


So that's just 2... Not to mention the other members of the Nuclear club... Well let's just throw them in for kicks.
Wiki Estimates of active warheads( May be more, may be less)
United States · 1,950-8500
Russia 2,430-11,000
United Kingdom · 160-225
France 290-300
China · 180-240
India · 80-100
Israel 80-200
Pakistan · 90-110
North Korea



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7

Originally posted by justwokeup
This is the Russians sabre rattling because they object to the placement of ABM batteries on their doorstep. The effectiveness of their arsenal isn't really diminished to any extent but they are trying to use the threat of a new nuclear arms race to get a policy change in NATO.

There is no magic shield protecting the USA or allied nations. Its wishful thinking.

Russia and the USA retain the capability to exterminate each others civilisations. The fact that it isn't talked about much these days hasn't altered the fact.



nopes! Russians are genuinely sh***t scared now. 1990s saw the NATO encroach on their borders and now ABM on land and ships. Russians got reduced from Superpower to a Regional power in 1990s. Now they fear getting further reduced to a treatment of third world nation to be toyed and joyed with. Stupid Gorbahcov and Yeltsin types trusted the west in 1980s and are paying the price now. They do not have much room to move as their last trump card, the nuke missiles are nearly rendered cancelled out, if not immediately then in next 3-5 years.


With the ability to launch about 2500 nuclear warheads at the USA I find it a bit hard to believe.

Current planned systems like the SM6 to be put in Europe in limited numbers could maybe stop a limited launch (either a rogue state or a mistake) but not an all out saturation attack from Russia.

Even if you could stop 90% by some 'magic kick ass tech' the USA would still be struck by about 250 warheads (many in the multiple megaton range) and be eliminated as a functioning society.

If you know of some real deployed or soon to be deployed system that can really stop enough to make a difference i'm interested.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


I agree about the saturation attack logic but currently US has an unofficial triple layered defense at works: Patriot types then THAAD followed by AEGIS based AMDs on ships and lands. Interception is planned at both booster phase, in space and if these two fail then in the earth's atmosphere once the missile re-enters.

Let me point out one factor that we as civilians do not know. What secret techs major nations have regarding this or that is not in our calculations. Somewhere I read that Isomer Weapons that release Gamma rays can also result in tearing apart the 'fabric of space'. Does this mean creating a black hole on this earth alone. Then in a matter of few minutes everything will be liquid, then gas and then disappeared. I am not into advanced physics but if such theories are around the corner, then it is only a matter of 'when not if'.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Some blast effects for a 20 megaton nuclear bomb.. Detonated at a height of 5.4km
BLAST effective range
Urban Areas completely leveled. 20psi/140kpa at 6.4km from ground zero
destruction of most civilian buildings 5psi/34kpa 17km from ground zero
moderate damage to civilian buildings 1psi/6.9kpa 47km from ground zero
Railway cars thrown from tracks and crushed 10km from ground zero (0.63 [[kp/cm2]] = 62 kPa; values for other than 20 kT are extrapolated using the cube-root scaling)

Thermal radiation effective range
conflaguration 30km from ground zero
third degree burns 38km from ground zero
second degree burns 44km
first defgree burns 53km from ground zero
EFFECTS OF INSTANT NUCLEAR RADIATION effective slant range SR/KM
Lethal total dose of Neutrons and gamma rays 4.7km (22.09+29.16=51.25km from ground zero.)
total dose for acute radiation syndrome 5.4 km ( 29.16+29.16=58.32km from ground zero.)
Wind, weather, temperature and other atmospheric conditions can effect the range and effect of radiation distribution, and duration.

This is 1, 20MgT warhead detonated at a height of 5.4km, the largest ever tested was 50MgT by Russia, I do not know the current largest bomb, nor the quantity of these extremely devastating weapons.

1) For the direct radiation effects the slant range instead of the ground range is shown here, because some effects are not given even at ground zero for some burst heights. If the effect occurs at ground zero the ground range can simply be derived from slant range and burst altitude (Pythagorean theorem).

2) "Acute radiation syndrome" corresponds here to a total dose of one gray, "lethal" to ten grays. Note that this is only a rough estimate since biological conditions are neglected here

Other phenomena

Gamma rays from the explosion form a fireball, as they superheat nearby air and/or other material. For an explosion in the atmosphere, the fireball quickly expands to maximum size, and then cools as it rises through the surrounding still air. It takes on the flow pattern of a vortex ring with incandescent material in the vortex core as seen in certain photographs. This effect is known as a mushroom cloud.

Sand fuses into glass.

At the explosion of nuclear bombs lightning discharges sometimes occur.

Smoke trails are often seen in photographs of nuclear explosions. These are not from the explosion itself; they are left by sounding rockets launched just prior to detonation. These trails allow observation of the blast's normally invisible shock wave in the moments following the explosion.

The heat and airborne debris created by a nuclear explosion can cause rain. After the Hiroshima explosion, these drops of water were recorded to have been about the size of marbles. (keep in mind it's highly likely this rain is carrying extremely high levels of radiation. see en.wikipedia.org...)

Survivability

This is highly dependent on factors such as proximity to the blast and the direction of the wind carrying fallout. Death is highly likely and radiation poisoning is almost certain if one is close enough within the radius of the blast (for example 3 to 4 miles for a 1 megaton atmospheric blast).

If there were an event where the world were to launch it's entire nuclear arsenal I would assume we would be in a global conflict, thus nations like the USA and Russia would re-activate it's weapons in stock pile effectively quadrupling their current stock piles, in such an event the world would suffer severe consequences, not to mention the possibility that earths atmosphere could develop elevations in temperature or with the vaporization of so much material into dust clouds of radioactive debris could have tremendous effects on global weather, temperatures, as well as detrimental effects to the entire world's ecosystems. There are places in the world that are still suffering severe, ever evolving damage that we are only beginning to understand many years after the first nuclear tests were undergone.


edit on 2/17/2012 by Ilyich because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/17/2012 by Ilyich because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Ilyich
 


in that case count on your nukes to save the day for Russia. But technically whole earth will be contaminated but not destroyed. You can destroy cities and regions but not the whole earth, not with 50K nukes. US is pulling away from nukes as new weapons can render much more damage and not spread radioactivity. This way cities can be rehabilitate quickly again.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by victor7
 


Okay, yes it would take a rather large quantity of weapons to actually " Destroy " the earth, but we currently possess enough nuclear weapons to render Earth uninhabitable, as far as current lifeforms on Earth the key supporting organisms could be destroyed. How ever, this would essentially provide a clean slate for the evolution of new different organisms over millions of generations. The energy required to actually destroy earth would be substantial, but I'm pretty sure if we detonated all the worlds nuclear weapons, especially in the confined spaces of land the super heating of the surrounding atmosphere could have severe consequences including the realization of the chain reaction theory by super heating and ionization of atmospheric gasses.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by justwokeup
 


I agree about the saturation attack logic but currently US has an unofficial triple layered defense at works: Patriot types then THAAD followed by AEGIS based AMDs on ships and lands. Interception is planned at both booster phase, in space and if these two fail then in the earth's atmosphere once the missile re-enters.

Let me point out one factor that we as civilians do not know. What secret techs major nations have regarding this or that is not in our calculations. Somewhere I read that Isomer Weapons that release Gamma rays can also result in tearing apart the 'fabric of space'. Does this mean creating a black hole on this earth alone. Then in a matter of few minutes everything will be liquid, then gas and then disappeared. I am not into advanced physics but if such theories are around the corner, then it is only a matter of 'when not if'.


Understood. I wasn't questioning the feasibility of intercepting missiles. Just that the plan isn't currently to build a system of sufficient range and depth that can counter Russia.

With regard to secret tech its fun to speculate but I kind of hope nobody has anything more destructive then a large thermonuclear weapon and I hope we don't get in to a new BMD arms race.

Like it or not its only the balance of terror thats stopped us killing ourselves already. When a nuclear war appears winnable somebody will have one. Its human nature.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Ilyich
 


I also want to add that in theory the release of such a large amount of energy could have completely unknown consequences. I'm going to use the example of the three gorges damn in china. The total mass of water involved in this hydro-electric damn has effected earth's rotation. The phenomena is known as the moment of inertia. Here is an article stating what I'm referring to. www.theenergylibrary.com...

Can you even imagine the potential effects of releasing that much energy with in earth's atmosphere? I understand, Earth is a very large collection of mass, and our atmosphere has an extremely large volume and many of the things I've chosen to mention are theories, but nothing of this scale has ever occurred to our knowledge, even some of the devastating meteor/comet impacts that have potentially caused ELE's do know equal that of the combined yield of the worlds entire nuclear stock pile. Earth's rotation could effectively be changed, it's axis could be tilted, Atmosphere could escape earth's gravitational field, as well such a large release of radiation and electro magnetism could potentially result in changes in earth's seismic and electro magnetic activity.

Is there some one more canny in physics who could attempt to crunch the numbers here? I understand this is a rather large potentially complicated task, but how much energy would it take to heat earths atmosphere to a point where a runaway effect could occur ?



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightbringr
Link doesnt appear to work.

Not sure if this defense is all that, is it? Going to be able to stop SLBM? Lets say the Russians launched their entire arsenal at the continental USA? What percentage would make it through?


It's a lot deeper than the missile shield which in reality is a last line of defense

#1 is first strike capacity by EM and Rods from god type weapons

#2 is Em and Microwave defenses like Haarp

#3 is electronic counter measures

#4 is physical missile defense, planes aegis and anti missile system

The first, defense is a good offense, if we detected Russian systems activating we could use an initial space based EM attack, this would eliminate all mobile systems, down most communication capacity, prevent ICBMs from immediately launching as even though protected in order to not be fried they would have to delay launch from anywhere from 10 minutes to 30 minutes giving us further first strike capacity, additionally rods from god have around a 3 minute window and during this small 10 minute window, some at least could be landed in Russian ICBM fields taking out even more of thir missiles while still in the ground

Next are Haarp systems or Haarp like systems, when they finally do achieve launch of Icbms we could disable any bulk launch in the high atmospheric stage, in order to thwart haarp the Russians would have to launch small volleys of missiles many of which would be vulnerable to electronic counter measures, it is possible we could even shut down some of the silos by satellite under such conditions before they launched

The FINAL stage is Missile defense, Jets and Aegis etc, this is the last resort to finish off small or singular missiles that that actually make it through in an attempt to prevent any missile strikes at all, the Russians fear this stage because they know even 10 nukes getting through of 2000 is a serious strike against America, an economic nightmare, a large death toll a major loss of infra structure, this last line of defense aids in taking out sub based missiles, cruise type missiles and whatever other missiles simply manage to "survive"

There is yet another arm and I don't know if as of yet it is available but that would be to take out subs, not exactly nano tech, but miniaturized underwater bombs and attack systems, probably available as they are not that tough to actually build miniature drones of the seas to pace Russian subs, too small to be detected, the size of a small child's remote control boat for example but capable of blowing a hole in the side of any nuclear sub which is of course very vulnerable to such a minor attack under water

Mad no longer exists

That's why we have such balls



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


It appears winnable, they are willing to have one

Don't shoot the messenger



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by Ilyich
 


in that case count on your nukes to save the day for Russia. But technically whole earth will be contaminated but not destroyed. You can destroy cities and regions but not the whole earth, not with 50K nukes. US is pulling away from nukes as new weapons can render much more damage and not spread radioactivity. This way cities can be rehabilitate quickly again.


Don't forget the speed! It's not so much the damage as the speed

Haarp type weapons are instantaneous, speed of light, Rods from God can strike and hit in a shorter time frame if positioned right than Russia could even enter the codes in their equivalent of the nuclear football, about 3 minutes and any space or in this case shuttle based EM attack would also be speed of light



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by victor7

Originally posted by justwokeup
This is the Russians sabre rattling because they object to the placement of ABM batteries on their doorstep. The effectiveness of their arsenal isn't really diminished to any extent but they are trying to use the threat of a new nuclear arms race to get a policy change in NATO.

There is no magic shield protecting the USA or allied nations. Its wishful thinking.

Russia and the USA retain the capability to exterminate each others civilisations. The fact that it isn't talked about much these days hasn't altered the fact.





nopes! Russians are genuinely sh***t scared now. 1990s saw the NATO encroach on their borders and now ABM on land and ships. Russians got reduced from Superpower to a Regional power in 1990s. Now they fear getting further reduced to a treatment of third world nation to be toyed and joyed with. Stupid Gorbahcov and Yeltsin types trusted the west in 1980s and are paying the price now. They do not have much room to move as their last trump card, the nuke missiles are nearly rendered cancelled out, if not immediately then in next 3-5 years.


With the ability to launch about 2500 nuclear warheads at the USA I find it a bit hard to believe.

Current planned systems like the SM6 to be put in Europe in limited numbers could maybe stop a limited launch (either a rogue state or a mistake) but not an all out saturation attack from Russia.

Even if you could stop 90% by some 'magic kick ass tech' the USA would still be struck by about 250 warheads (many in the multiple megaton range) and be eliminated as a functioning society.

If you know of some real deployed or soon to be deployed system that can really stop enough to make a difference i'm interested.




I guesstimate we could smack down 90% in the ionosphere alone BEFORE other methods are applied, I know Russias shielded missiles make up comfortable less than 10%, European systems and Alaskan systems would have launch phase capacity and we would have a pretty good idea as to where those shielded missiles are coming from as we can watch everything from space and have surely tracked movements from factory to deployment and we would be doing this "after" a first strike

Now remember 1700+ warheads are actually located on only 400 + missiles and if they can never get past the ionosphere they can't dispatch those war heads, a significant portion of Russian missiles are mobile but those are useless if we first strike via emp

we might be defending against, maybe 15 warheads via conventional means before all is said and done

This is why the anti sub systems are vital 608 on subs, probably the only reason we aren't in Iran right now and discourage the Israelis is that we want to make sure the 608 located on Russian subs are effectively countered to, that's the scenario where they get in 250 missiles

It's dicey, An EMP strike over Russia would likely knock out any ability to communicate with those subs, but! they have some advance communications i'm sure, those could be knocked out with a singular rod from god on Moscow

But at that point the subs have orders to launch if communications is lost within or for x amount of time, How many would launch, could traditional missile defenses knock them out, we know from our own studies a significant number of(and this goes for silos after an em strike as well) men in these situations won't launch it was as high as 80% for our forces and when they do it will be hodge podge all different times because they are debating the situation which makes it easier to A: effectively take out their subs via our subs during this gap (which results in us loosing a lot of subs) and B: Hit them as they launch because they would be coming separately literally like a missile defense test

But it's dicey, where we are with underwater drones is the measure of how likely we are to engage the Russians
edit on 17-2-2012 by lordnightstalker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by lordnightstalker
 


Love to see your info on HAARP being anti-ballistic missile defense.

First I've heard of it. Everyone and their dog think it's for something different.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by nightbringr
 


I said "haarp type" An initial thought in the development of Haarp was that we could super heat the plasma in the ionosphere and literally disintegrate ICBM launches above the launch site but the reality while not nearly as glamorous is very real and Haarp by itself does have the capacity to do something just as good, To detonate a warhead requires very sophisticated timing mechanisms and electronics they are extremely vulnerable to microwave and em, while the initial thought of super heated plasma turned out to need way to much energy the capacity to turn an ICBM into a dud that can not actually detonate so Haarp type defense wont set the atmosphere on fire lol, but they can certainly knock out the timers on unshielded ICBMS and render them nothing more than... let's say 20 icbms are launched at LA, it would make them 20 rockets with balls of radioactive material that take out buildings when they fall from the sky, in other words an old lady in compton gets a ball of uranium that doesn't detonate through her roof lol


The real Haarp? it's all around you, it's nothing more than directionalized microwaves which means it's nothing more than a computer program that can take control of your local cell phone tower, or at least special cell phone towers designed with govt cooperation for the purpose

Russia for all intents and purposes is currently dealing with around 25 well shielded highly maneuverable missiles with very large warheads, their defense against us is there but this is why they fear a semi crap conventional missile defense system in deployment

25 big war heads given the em effects in a modern society is all but a kill on America, a very successful deferent, they do not "have to panic" over that, 25 big nukes is a nightmare, they have designed some very evasive rockets and they have devised some very well shielded rockets but they are currently deployed on maybe a couple of dozen rockets, with a wide spread conventional missile defense system we stand a good chance of destroying those by simply throwing so much crap at them from so many directions conventionally we take out even the low flyers. This is why the "missile shield" "that is designed to take out a small handful of missiles from a rouge state" is a threat to them For all intents and purposes their nuclear deterrent currently revolves around 20 + monster warheads on an equal number of highly sophisticated delivery systems
edit on 17-2-2012 by lordnightstalker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by Ilyich
 


US is pulling away from nukes as new weapons can render much more damage and not spread radioactivity. This way cities can be rehabilitate quickly again.


Yeah but who would be alive to rehabilitate these cities if the US and Russia have much more dangerous and damaging weapon systems?

What is the purpose of these more damaging weapons. They wont solve anything or make life any easier after use. It will be more complicated to hide or even survive these weapon systems compared to nuclear weapons.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I'll field my input on this

They aren't counting on long term effects, EM pulse destroys electronics but leaves everything intact, in other words the kill comes from internal chaos but no long lasting effects it also renders most weapons systems, the sophisticated ones, Jets, Tanks, Missiles useless, Rods from God is purely kinetic energy, there is no radiation but you get the damage initially of a fair sized atomic bomb and above all both offer FIRST STRIKE potential which means your enemy doesn't get to launch so you suffer almost no damage, no long lasting effects

we have a population of 300 million, if the govt choose to encourage babies rather than discourage them we could replace chinas 1.2 billion in 20 years, but with these systems if you eliminate the bulk of China Russia India and Pakistan for all intents and purposes you have freed up a continent, the resources are still mine-able, the land can still produce food and you don't need to send large numbers of people 10 men can mine or harvest 100 acres with modern equipment

Gosh that all sounds so evil... hey I didn't invent this stuff I just have a morbid fascination with it



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordnightstalker
Next are Haarp systems or Haarp like systems, when they finally do achieve launch of Icbms we could disable any bulk launch in the high atmospheric stage, in order to thwart haarp the Russians would have to launch small volleys of missiles many of which would be vulnerable to electronic counter measures, it is possible we could even shut down some of the silos by satellite under such conditions before they launched


This is the post you made im questioning.

In another post, you hypothesized that the US would take out 90% of incoming missiles in the ionisphere using "haarp or haarp like defenses". Since you are so sure of this claim, you must have some sources to back this up, and id like to read about them. Your last post did nothing but discuss what you believe to be possible, but it would appear to be nothing more than idle speculation. People like myself like to read and learn on such things.

To claim the "bulk" of Russian missiles would be neutralized by this defense is quite significant. Please show us some proof.

And you do realize the Russians have a HAARP of their own, right? More powerful than the USA version. Its called "Sura", look it up.

edit on 17-2-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join