Military Review

NI: The United States has no protection against Russian missiles, and there never was

108
The American National Interest claims that in order to destroy the United States, Russia will not even need the latest Avangard systems, since the United States does not have a full-fledged antimissile defense system capable of repelling even the existing ballistic missiles.


NI: The United States has no protection against Russian missiles, and there never was


The publication writes that Russia now has about 528 ballistic missiles, which are based both on land and under water, but a small part of this number will suffice to destroy the United States. According to the authors of the journal, the United States today does not have substantial protection against ballistic missiles. States can only try to create a system that with limited success "can knock down missiles launched by the DPRK or another small country." Neither the system created by the United States in the 20 century, has not earned, nor Safeguard in the 1960-ies, nor the Reagan program "Star Wars" in the 1980-x. Also, all the systems that are currently working in the United States do not guarantee that they can stop the missiles.

The publication emphasizes that Russia is far advanced in creating the newest weaponswhich is capable of penetrating any US missile defense, especially since it simply does not exist and is unlikely to be in the future.
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
108 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Tank jacket
    Tank jacket 8 November 2018 10: 38
    +14
    And they don’t need protection, they are fighting in the information field, color revolutions, remember how the USSR collapsed with its invincible army.
    1. Andrey Chistyakov
      Andrey Chistyakov 8 November 2018 10: 43
      +2
      In about Vietnam, they somehow didn’t succeed. With their army.
      1. Tank jacket
        Tank jacket 8 November 2018 10: 43
        +2
        So this is not the main target
        1. Andrey Chistyakov
          Andrey Chistyakov 8 November 2018 10: 46
          +2
          Well, yes ... 50t. they put their own. Just a mere.
          1. Tank jacket
            Tank jacket 8 November 2018 10: 47
            +2
            And the Vietnamese soldiers and peace were counted
            1. Andrey Chistyakov
              Andrey Chistyakov 8 November 2018 10: 51
              0
              The Germans also died less in the Second World War. In Berlin, it all ended in the end.
              1. Tank jacket
                Tank jacket 8 November 2018 11: 01
                +23
                The soldier died almost the same, we just did not kill the civilian population, like the Germans.
                1. Andrey Chistyakov
                  Andrey Chistyakov 8 November 2018 11: 02
                  +1
                  Do not believe it .. I'm in the know.
                  1. Tank jacket
                    Tank jacket 8 November 2018 11: 04
                    -3
                    By the way, Vietnam can be considered defeated, because they are built into the western model. Now they are friends with amers, they do not require compensation for the use of chemical weapons and napalm, as God's chosen ones, for example.
                    1. Andrey Chistyakov
                      Andrey Chistyakov 8 November 2018 11: 08
                      +4
                      We are friends with the Germans too.
                      1. Tank jacket
                        Tank jacket 8 November 2018 11: 10
                        0
                        We also lost the Cold War 1.0
                      2. Andrey Chistyakov
                        Andrey Chistyakov 8 November 2018 11: 11
                        -1
                        The Roman Empire also fell apart.
                      3. Tank jacket
                        Tank jacket 8 November 2018 11: 13
                        +2
                        Ruined, nothing happens by itself, there is always control.
                      4. Andrey Chistyakov
                        Andrey Chistyakov 8 November 2018 11: 14
                        +1
                        "World Conspiracy"?
                      5. Tank jacket
                        Tank jacket 8 November 2018 11: 21
                        +1
                        Control. By the way about the Roman Empire, Barack Obama allowed LGBT to serve in the army referenced the Roman experience
                      6. Andrey Chistyakov
                        Andrey Chistyakov 8 November 2018 11: 23
                        +1
                        And how did the Great Rome end? Some barbarians defeated.
                      7. Tank jacket
                        Tank jacket 8 November 2018 11: 31
                        +1
                        This is the management, make an army of LGBT people and some barbarians ...
                      8. Andrey Chistyakov
                        Andrey Chistyakov 8 November 2018 11: 32
                        0
                        I am not a commander. And generally against LGBT people.
                      9. Machito
                        Machito 8 November 2018 12: 31
                        -1
                        Some barbarians are Germans, French, British, etc.
                      10. alex-s
                        alex-s 8 November 2018 11: 25
                        +1
                        The collapse, just right, can happen!
                    2. usovo1
                      usovo1 8 November 2018 11: 26
                      +1
                      This is because Vietnam was cast by EBN. The Vietnamese themselves are very sorry that they lost good ties with Russia
                      1. Mercenary
                        Mercenary 8 November 2018 16: 09
                        -1
                        Vietnam immediately sent Russia after writing off 11 billion by the bear. And he doesn’t let us go to Cam Ranh (thanks for that though) And the T-90 tanks were again driven into debt, although the main T-72Ms themselves.
                      2. Frederick
                        Frederick 8 November 2018 16: 10
                        -2
                        Vietnam was abandoned by Putin with the closure of the base in Kamrani and the Vietnamese had no choice but to seek protection from China from someone else and the other turned out to be the States. Cuba was also abandoned by him, they were generally thrown three times, first, Khrushchev, then Gorbachev, and then Putin overturned ...
                    3. andj61
                      andj61 8 November 2018 11: 29
                      +6
                      Quote: Tank jacket
                      By the way, Vietnam can be considered defeated, because they are built into the western model. Now they are friends with amers, they do not require compensation for the use of chemical weapons and napalm, as God's chosen ones, for example.

                      Vietnam simply had no choice - we just threw Vietnam, like Cuba, although they, unlike numerous Arab and African "friends", Vietnam never refused to pay us or deliver goods on account of the debt. Therefore, Vietnam cannot be considered defeated - it won in the 90s and 50s in the same way as in the 70s - XNUMXs - and in the war with France, and then with the United States and their puppets, and in the struggle for its own existence. as a sovereign state. hi
                      1. Alber
                        Alber 8 November 2018 14: 37
                        +1
                        Quote: andj61
                        Vietnam simply had no choice - we just threw Vietnam, just like Cuba

                        Like the GDR and Honneker ...
                    4. The comment was deleted.
                    5. Krasnodar
                      Krasnodar 8 November 2018 13: 32
                      -1
                      Quote: Tank jacket
                      By the way, Vietnam can be considered defeated, because they are built into the western model. Now they are friends with amers, they do not require compensation for the use of chemical weapons and napalm, as God's chosen ones, for example.

                      Ha. The Nazis in Berlin alone took away more property from the God-chosen than the value of that Vietnam in the 60s and early 70s. And in Vienna? And in Paris? In Brussels? Throughout Europe, occupied by the Germans, given, of course, Germany ...
                2. mashinist
                  mashinist 8 November 2018 15: 56
                  -2
                  Yes, not exactly the same .. the military Germans 5 million, and our 8,5 million died! it is more than 1,6 times. My grandfather was still alive, though he left glaucoma without vision, so he says that they took in quantity. In principle, one can justify oneself only by the fact that at the beginning of the war, our people did not know how to fight and died a lot, and then there should still be more defenders attacking since they die more when taking positions. I explained it purely for myself why so, maybe wrong
                  1. Reserve buildbat
                    Reserve buildbat 8 November 2018 17: 48
                    +1
                    Congratulations))) Military Germans 5 million. Add the French, Romanians, Italians, Hungarians, whatever. It is not the Germans that need to be counted, but the entire Gay European Shobla that rushed to the USSR. There it turns out that our losses of servicemen are almost no less than those of the "united" Europe against the USSR.
                    1. mashinist
                      mashinist 8 November 2018 20: 58
                      +1
                      Well, I'm sorry, this is not only the Germans, this is the loss of the parties to the confrontation, I did not write correctly
                      1. Reserve buildbat
                        Reserve buildbat 8 November 2018 21: 00
                        +1
                        In that case, it is a linden. laughing
                        The Wehrmacht’s sheer casualties were about 5 million killed. And their allies more about 4,5 million added, as far as I remember. These are only permanent losses.
                      2. mashinist
                        mashinist 8 November 2018 21: 35
                        -1
                        The irretrievable losses of a united Germany - 8 people. The losses of Volkssturm, Police, collaborators are unknown. Well, as you know, they are far from millions.
                        Irretrievable losses of the USSR - 11 people
                        Ours died much more and this is understandable.
                      3. Reserve buildbat
                        Reserve buildbat 8 November 2018 21: 40
                        +1
                        Add something about a million Italians, a million that way 2 French, Hungarians and other small couple of million, by the way, the losses of the Volkssturm were very high, and "collaborators" (traitors, in short) only in the USSR army had more than a million. And by the way, they are mostly included in the irrecoverable losses. But not included in the database of losses of "united Europe" under the "brand" "Third Reich"
          2. Mercenary
            Mercenary 8 November 2018 16: 05
            -1
            The problem is that the Vietnamese did not have the Internet, so that they read all the dregs from the 5th column and unconditionally believe, like our young people of all NAVALNAYA abominations.
      2. ALEX_SHTURMAN
        ALEX_SHTURMAN 8 November 2018 11: 53
        -5
        And who told you that it didn’t work out very well, depending on what results they pursued. Today, the Vietnamese don’t really remember the war and are ready to get closer to the States than to us.
        1. Andrey Chistyakov
          Andrey Chistyakov 8 November 2018 11: 59
          +1
          The fact that the United States with disgrace left Vietnam. And after that they created a contract army.
          1. ALEX_SHTURMAN
            ALEX_SHTURMAN 8 November 2018 12: 13
            -3
            You argue as a military man that you must always win somewhere and stick a flag. They create chaos wherever they can and support it. The main task is for the whole World to glow, and the island should be calm then all denyuzhki will flow to them.
            1. Andrey Chistyakov
              Andrey Chistyakov 8 November 2018 12: 16
              -1
              You asked, I answered.
        2. andj61
          andj61 8 November 2018 12: 19
          0
          Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN
          And who told you that it didn’t work out very well, depending on what results they pursued. Today, the Vietnamese don’t really remember the war and are ready to get closer to the States than to us.

          The staff didn’t succeed - they fled from Vietnam without looking back. And this defeat forced them, as comrades have already noted, to radically reform their army. Today's Vietnamese and the war are just remembered and grateful to us. Only, given their, to put it mildly, not too good relations with China, the Vietnamese in this confrontation are more likely to rely on the United States than on Russia. Russia and China have good relations, and for the sake of Vietnam we will not spoil them. And the United States supports all of the US rivals in the region — Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, and even the Philippines. hi
      3. Korax71
        Korax71 8 November 2018 11: 57
        0
        Normally, they succeeded in Vietnam with their army. Politically, they lost the war, not in the military. All the key battles of that war remained with the Americans. Sev. Vietnam tried with the Viet Cong tried to get a strategic initiative, for example, an offensive in violation of the truce for the Tet holiday but this yielded only a very short-term result, after which, after heavy losses, everything returned to its original position. Well, and as if the supported regime of southern Vietnam lasted for some time after the withdrawal of troops. But here again, the offensive of the North Vietnamese troops and partisans began with a violation of the signed they themselves in Paris ceasefire and dividing line.
        1. andj61
          andj61 8 November 2018 12: 33
          +2
          Quote: Korax71
          Normally, they succeeded in Vietnam with their army. Politically, they lost the war, not in the military. All the key battles of that war remained with the Americans.

          So they won that they fled from Vietnam - abandoning equipment and property. yes I wish there were more such purely American victories!
          Regarding the violation of the Paris agreements, these violations began with punitive operations against the guerrillas of southern Vietnam, whom you call the Viet Cong. The puppets in Saigon believed that these agreements did not concern them, although the liberation front of southern Vietnam took part in the negotiations. The Americans did not particularly want to fight there, but only "propped up" their puppets, using their aircraft and navy on a large scale. As soon as it came to real military operations with a real experienced and motivated Vietnamese army, they immediately fled the country.
          1. Korax71
            Korax71 8 November 2018 16: 47
            -3
            Well, I didn’t just give an example of an attack on the Tet holiday. There was a surprise factor, yes, the army of northern Vietnam developed success, took several key points, but I couldn’t keep them despite the revenue and motivation. And you only have the air force and navy didn’t they support land operations? did you consider this conflict very one-sidedly? if they had an interaction between the military branches, what’s wrong with that? The equipment was not abandoned, but transferred to the army of South Vietnam, just like and fire support bases, as well as river flotillas. it’s not worth distorting. transporting the mate part to a certain extent which has exhausted its resources would be more expensive than the production of a new one. like the USSR in Afghanistan. in principle, there was a military victory, but politically, a loss.
      4. Alber
        Alber 8 November 2018 14: 48
        -2
        Quote: Andrey Chistyakov
        In about Vietnam, they somehow didn’t succeed. With their army.

        Do not flatter yourself. The USA has a powerful ECONOMY. Thousands of times more powerful than ours
    2. Machito
      Machito 8 November 2018 10: 47
      +2
      US defense prefer attack.
    3. vkl.47
      vkl.47 8 November 2018 10: 51
      +6
      This newspaper lobbies the interests of the Ministry of Defense. They beg money and scare the Russians so that they give more dough
    4. siberalt
      siberalt 8 November 2018 10: 58
      0
      Then, with what kind of US missile defense systems did they surround Russia, if there are none at all? belay
      1. Machito
        Machito 8 November 2018 12: 33
        0
        The American missile defense compared to the Russian one is about nothing.
    5. figwam
      figwam 8 November 2018 11: 00
      +9
      the US does not have a full-fledged missile defense system capable of repelling the blow of even the currently existing ballistic missiles.

      Under the guise of a missile defense, the Yankees did not pull up defensive, but offensive systems for delivering the first disarming strike, we definitely need to do the same, they don’t understand another language.
    6. Bellerophon
      Bellerophon 8 November 2018 11: 18
      0
      Need not? SMILE. And what Hundreds of BILLIONS of green pieces of paper were spent and spent?
    7. NEXUS
      NEXUS 8 November 2018 11: 28
      0
      Quote: Tank jacket
      Yes, they don’t need protection,

      In our doctrine, it is clearly written about the RESPONSE-MEETING strike, that is, only the answer, and not the preemptive strike.
      1. Karislav
        Karislav 9 November 2018 10: 08
        0
        but didn’t wonder why in the USA there is a missile defense around missile bases, and in the USSR around Moscow ?! From here it follows - who wanted to defend themselves, and who to attack FIRST !!! 2 * 2 = 4)
    8. mikh-korsakov
      mikh-korsakov 8 November 2018 11: 53
      +2
      Tank jacket I completely agree! The one who remembers his youth. he remembers that young people tend to critically assess their elders - in principle, there is nothing wrong with that - this drives progress. BUT. It is enough for the authorities to behave with the people like an elephant in a china shop, even if the actions of the authorities were dictated by some economic considerations - and controversially - real and far-fetched, as a "kind" uncle immediately appears, who begins to inspire parts, albeit an insignificant part, of the youth that his bad life is not to blame for his own laziness or intimate failures, but the SYSTEM! Everyone knows what will start later. Our government is now just acting like an elephant. In general, as in the ingenious song "You don't need a knife on a fool's house ..."
      1. The comment was deleted.
    9. venik
      venik 8 November 2018 15: 39
      0
      Quote: Tank jacket
      And they don’t need protection, they are fighting in the information field, color revolutions, remember how the USSR collapsed with its invincible army.

      ===========
      Well no!!! It's about ANOTHER !!! From the "Senate" and the Congress "the" bablosy "must be" knocked out "...... So they are trying !!! This is not the first time !! Look at the HISTORY !!!
      1. Tank jacket
        Tank jacket 8 November 2018 19: 33
        0
        Well, this option is parallel with my version, the loot has not bothered anyone.
  2. himRa
    himRa 8 November 2018 10: 39
    +3
    The publication emphasizes that Russia has advanced far in creating the latest weapons that can penetrate any missile defense of the United States, especially since it simply does not exist and is unlikely to be in the future.

    Well, if you argue on the basis of history, the Amerans managed to give an answer, and they can do it fast enough .. as it should be recognized in fairness
  3. Tank jacket
    Tank jacket 8 November 2018 10: 39
    -4
    Well, or a floating dock in Murmansk, it’s enough to find a traitor
  4. Troll
    Troll 8 November 2018 10: 46
    +6
    Full protection against Ya.O. none of the countries have. And Russia, including, alas.
  5. Berber
    Berber 8 November 2018 10: 49
    0
    If you fell for the "Star Wars" - you lost the "Cold War". It is necessary to draw conclusions and not waste money. And also, like the Americans, "advertise" fake weapons - to keep "partners" in good shape.
  6. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 8 November 2018 10: 52
    0
    All that the Americans have so far achieved in terms of protection against ICBMs is the interception of single launches from Asia by batteries in Alaska (with about 50% efficiency - that is, 3 interceptor missiles per ICBM).
    And the THAAD system can shoot down on a descent over a target. THAAD Batteries Cover California Industrial Area
    1. Tank jacket
      Tank jacket 8 November 2018 11: 09
      0
      And in the Duma, the deputies standing up applauded the congressmen during the discussion of the law, so that they count on the traitors and they are.
    2. Butchcassidy
      Butchcassidy 8 November 2018 11: 27
      0
      Xs, what are the real performance characteristics of these Teddies, they trained, as they say, "on cats" - imitators P-17 were used as targets.

      Data available in open sources - from 1000 to 2800 m / s interceptor missile speed. Given the fact that even with North Korean missiles they really chose not to butt, but to agree, the question is called open - do their missile defense systems work properly or not.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 8 November 2018 12: 19
        -1
        With 386 SM 3, 50 GBI, and 200 THAAD missiles, they will not intercept many warheads.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 8 November 2018 13: 10
          +1
          SM 3 - only against the anti-ballistic missile in the middle of the trajectory.
          Against ICBMs: GBI in the middle section and THAAD on the descent.
          1. Butchcassidy
            Butchcassidy 7 December 2018 19: 23
            0
            Again, the question is in the real effectiveness of the systems. It follows from open sources that THAAD were tested on Elbrus simulators before being adopted. The fact that over 40 years the technology has gone ahead, I think, no one doubts.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 7 December 2018 19: 32
              0
              A test equated to real conditions is very, very expensive. It’s like launching two ICBMs simultaneously (attacking missile and missile defense are about the same in price). But even launches on simulators give some idea of ​​efficiency. Somewhere around 50%.
              This means in practice that for each ICBM it is necessary to shoot three missile defense missiles in order to achieve interception. It is clear that when combat units of ICBMs descend on a city with a million population, they will shoot at all that is, without saving. Better a bad umbrella than none ....
              1. Butchcassidy
                Butchcassidy 7 December 2018 19: 50
                0
                So I don’t argue. It’s just that the tests on missile simulators, which had no missile defense systems and were developed almost 60 years ago, do not give any idea what the real effectiveness of these systems is against modern missiles. Yes, and the R-17 - never once an ICBM, but an INF.

                At least to understand the consumption of anti-ballistic missiles.

                But in a real situation, of course, they will be a naughty thing from all that is until the stock of antimissile defense is over.
                1. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 7 December 2018 22: 15
                  0
                  "did not have any missile defense penetration systems" ////
                  ------
                  You see, these "missile defense systems" are also very poorly tested. None
                  doesn't know if they are effective. Moreover, it is not known whether their ICBMs have them,
                  standing in service. Yars, for example. All these false goals (empty
                  caps simulating warheads), maneuvering on a certain part of the trajectory, complicating the system, increase the possibility of missed targets. In short, miss. Therefore, the Americans do not bother with all this.
                  1. Butchcassidy
                    Butchcassidy 9 December 2018 19: 16
                    0
                    If you mean the practical verification of the missile defense system, then it really (Thank God!) Did not exist. But in reality, they work and work better than missile defense systems. This is the law - attack systems are developing faster than defense systems, which are always at least a generation behind.

                    No need to go far - the healthy horseradish weighing a ton of R-17, which was developed almost 60 years ago, cannot be guaranteed to be brought down by the oldest Patriots.

                    Your argument about increasing the possibility of missed missiles equipped with missile defense systems does not stand up to criticism.
                    1. voyaka uh
                      voyaka uh 10 December 2018 00: 25
                      0
                      One of the ways to overcome missile defense is the so-called maneuvering. What it is? Warheads of ICBMs fly in space at such an insane speed (up to 20 MAX) that the slightest sharp maneuver generates powerful centrifugal forces that will forever lead the warhead away from the point of "aiming" (by inertial motion) over the target.
                      Therefore, "maneuvering" is a slight swaying with the help of gas rudders by plus or minus 1-2 degrees. Will such rocking of the "kinetic killers" of missile defense missiles be deceived?
                      Unknown. The "killer" has its own gas rudders and IR video cameras. It flies more slowly (towards the ICBM warhead) and can maneuver much sharper.
                      The Americans consider maneuvering ineffective and risky for accuracy, and their ICBMs and warheads do not have this feature.
                      1. Butchcassidy
                        Butchcassidy 11 December 2018 10: 20
                        0
                        Quote: voyaka uh
                        The Americans consider maneuvering ineffective and risky for accuracy, and their ICBMs and warheads do not have this feature.

                        Well, as they say, the sexual difficulties of the Americans. wassat This does not mean anything more.

                        Americans and stealth technology considered a wunderwolf, making flying angular coffins like the F-117, which are de "invisible" in some radar ranges. So what? But nothing. An airplane should be primarily an airplane, and for it flight performance is more important than the notorious stealth. Diminishing visibility is an important trend, but it shouldn't be overestimated. And the Americans are doing just that. The same is, I suppose, with maneuvering for missiles. Yes, another question is that behind this recognition of inefficiency it is likely that there may be a banal impossibility to solve a technical problem, as was the case with MLRS, according to which it was decided that the accuracy of their unguided shells could not be raised above a certain level. In Russia, this problem was solved and the MLRS has very high accuracy for its class. Naturally, the Americans do not admit that they cannot solve some problem at an acceptable technical level, it is cheaper and more ponderous to recognize its solution as ineffective. The PR and promotion of the Americans are notable - there is no bazaar here.

                        And modern ICBMs (and cruise missiles and other similar equipment) have a large number of control and guidance systems, a galaxy of homing heads - both inertial and active and semi-active and others. If you personally and the American school of rocket science in particular believe that in the case of yawing when overcoming missile defense systems a certain change in the missile trajectory irreparably reduces its accuracy, then it is obvious that you are mistaken. And it’s rare stupidity to believe that for missiles with nuclear warheads a minimal deviation from the target will make it ineffective to fulfill the task assigned to it. They will fulfill their tasks, I am sure that this is not in doubt among American partners, especially among the generals. Otherwise, they would have already been devoured with giblets. In the meantime, we live)))
                      2. voyaka uh
                        voyaka uh 11 December 2018 11: 27
                        0
                        "ICBMs have ... a number of control and guidance systems, a whole galaxy of homing heads - both inertial and active and semi-active and others" ////
                        -----
                        There is NOTHING other than inertial.
                        There is no connection with ICBMs since its launch. All goals are laid in advance.
                      3. Butchcassidy
                        Butchcassidy 11 December 2018 14: 45
                        0
                        Quote: voyaka uh
                        There is NOTHING other than inertial.
                        There is no connection with ICBMs since its launch. All goals are laid in advance.

                        I personally do not have documentation for domestic ICBMs. I don’t know the details. Some argue that they can give control of combat units through a cloud of red-hot plasma. lol

                        My controversy related to your statement that the Americans recognized missile maneuvering as an ineffective means of countering missile defense and therefore do not develop them on their missiles. I see this argument as unauthorized, I gave my arguments. And yet, to intercept a shrapnel-type "wiggle" will not be enough to overcome missile defense, and for those who rely only on kinetic interception, even a small "wiggle" may be enough.

                        In general, I wrote on control systems for missile technology in general, not only on ICBMs. Accordingly, about systems for overcoming both strategic and tactical missile defense.bully
                      4. voyaka uh
                        voyaka uh 11 December 2018 14: 59
                        0
                        "And also - this is for intercepting shrapnel type" ////
                        ----
                        The warhead of the ICBM is "armored".
                        From combustion in dense atmosphere. There are many layers of the strongest materials. Shrapnel for this coating is for elephant grains. For this reason, the Moscow missile defense system intercepts the warhead of ICBMs with a tactical nuclear charge, and the Americans switched from shrapnel to direct hit
                      5. Butchcassidy
                        Butchcassidy 11 December 2018 15: 49
                        0
                        Quote: voyaka uh
                        "
                        The warhead of the ICBM is "armored".
                        From combustion in dense atmosphere. There are many layers of the strongest materials. Shrapnel for this coating is for elephant grains. For this reason, the Moscow missile defense system intercepts the warhead of ICBMs with a tactical nuclear charge, and the Americans switched from shrapnel to direct hit


                        Again - let's agree on what kind of missile defense we are talking about? On strategic, tactical, or missile defense in general?
                      6. voyaka uh
                        voyaka uh 11 December 2018 15: 59
                        0
                        The article is strictly about ICBMs and strategic missile defense. I write about them. It is impossible to have a discussion about everything at once.
                      7. Butchcassidy
                        Butchcassidy 12 December 2018 12: 56
                        0
                        Quote: voyaka uh
                        The article is strictly about ICBMs and strategic missile defense. I write about them. It is impossible to have a discussion about everything at once.

                        I agree, everything is immediately impossible.

                        But the article states the following:
                        The publication writes that Russia now has approximately 528 ballistic missiles, which are based both on land, so under waterbut a small fraction of this amount is enough to destroy the United States.


                        Therefore, at least it is not strictly about ICBMs.

                        If we are talking about strategic missile defense, then it must take into account the counteraction of the entire nuclear triad - both ICBMs and ballistic missiles in submarines, and strategic cruise missiles. The latter have no intercontinental range, but no less dangerous. Therefore, not all attacking means of the nuclear triad have the same security as ICBMs.
                      8. Butchcassidy
                        Butchcassidy 11 December 2018 15: 39
                        0
                        Quote: voyaka uh
                        There is no connection with ICBMs since its launch. All goals are laid in advance.

                        Xs, by the way, why did you suddenly just catch on ICBMs. Ballistic missiles and sea-based also have intercontinental range. There are different GOS.

                        And strategic cruise missiles generally have what you want.

                        And for missile defense systems it does not matter what base the missiles have, which it must intercept.
  7. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 8 November 2018 11: 10
    +1
    And they don’t need them, they know that no one will be the first to shoot at them request and if globally they will not help
  8. HAM
    HAM 8 November 2018 11: 13
    +7
    Recently, because "Zvezda" was shown a film about the "Caribbean crisis", frankly, it was news to me how the Americans rushed en masse to Canada and Mexico ..... Maybe they don't need missile defense, but it's better to build wider roads in Canada and Mexico? And the wall on the border with Mexico is getting in the way ... laughing
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. bouncyhunter
      bouncyhunter 8 November 2018 11: 38
      +10
      hi Also watched this movie. Reminded of a rat drape from a sinking ship. Well, the NI article again resembles the first lines of a student’s letter home:
      "Urgent money out! Hello, mom!"
      1. LMN
        LMN 8 November 2018 13: 38
        +6
        Quote: bouncyhunter
        hi Also watched this movie. Reminded of a rat drape from a sinking ship. Well, the NI article again resembles the first lines of a student’s letter home:
        "Urgent money out! Hello, mom!"

        Money again?)) belay
        It seems that logic and meaning are stupidly absent in NI's "policy". They are thrown to extremes. Then our armament to G. In a week, the United States has no chance. And so endlessly ...
        Then someone gave statistics on visits to this publication, if you believe (did not check) it inspires ... the question is, who are these visitors ?! belay lol
        1. bouncyhunter
          bouncyhunter 8 November 2018 16: 58
          +6
          Maxim, hello! hi
          Quote: LMN
          Money again?))

          What is surprising? The golden calf rules the world ...
          Quote: LMN
          there is no logic or meaning in NI's "policy"

          If you extrapolate to them the mantra "money is everything!" , then both the logic and the meaning become clear: the more visitors, the more money cuff. Therefore, NI does not bother about the content of the articles. wink
          1. LMN
            LMN 8 November 2018 17: 46
            +3
            Quote: bouncyhunter
            Maxim, hello! hi
            Quote: LMN
            Money again?))

            What is surprising? The golden calf rules the world ...
            Quote: LMN
            there is no logic or meaning in NI's "policy"

            If you extrapolate to them the mantra "money is everything!" , then both the logic and the meaning become clear: the more visitors, the more money cuff. Therefore, NI does not bother about the content of the articles. wink

            Greetings hi (from the phone, alas, the name is not visible) request
            The content is not interesting .. the contingent is interesting wink who the same "crowds" bring down there .. was Zadornov right ?! lol
            1. bouncyhunter
              bouncyhunter 8 November 2018 18: 03
              +3
              Pasha dignifies me hi
              Quote: LMN
              interesting contingent

              It is always interesting on any resource. yes
              Quote: LMN
              who the same "crowds" bring down there .. was Zadornov right ?!

              Regarding Zadornov (God rest, his soul) I will say one thing - I respected this person immensely, respect and will respect. It was really a satirist (exactly so - with a capital letter).
              1. LMN
                LMN 8 November 2018 18: 18
                +3
                Quote: bouncyhunter
                Pasha dignifies me hi
                Quote: LMN
                interesting contingent

                It is always interesting on any resource. yes
                Quote: LMN
                who the same "crowds" bring down there .. was Zadornov right ?!

                Regarding Zadornov (God rest, his soul) I will say one thing - I respected this person immensely, respect and will respect. It was really a satirist (exactly so - with a capital letter).

                Hi Paul! hi
                By the way, I remembered Zadornova, though I don’t understand the stupid adoration of the media. And judging by the NI there is a sect ... although I did not read the comments there, maybe like ours what
                1. bouncyhunter
                  bouncyhunter 8 November 2018 18: 24
                  +2
                  Quote: LMN
                  And judging by the NI there is a sect

                  Maxim, and you ask how many sects in the USA and where (and where!) They pull their tentacles. By the way, who are the Mormons from the Mayflower? wink yes
                  1. LMN
                    LMN 8 November 2018 18: 53
                    +2
                    Quote: bouncyhunter
                    Quote: LMN
                    And judging by the NI there is a sect

                    Maxim, and you ask how many sects in the USA and where (and where!) They pull their tentacles. By the way, who are the Mormons from the Mayflower? wink yes

                    "Mayflower" .. who is this?) belay Of course I will take an interest later, but IMHO "European refugees" are much more important.
                    You are worried about the USA, China, and the problem is growing at the border!
                    I myself, somewhere below, wrote that I want to get out of Germany. For there have really become a lot of Iranians, Avgans, Syrians, Iraqis, etc., a lot of "leftists" ... and I already see the attitude towards myself. this one, expected, understandable and worthy, if others are the end ...
                    And they, step by step, devour Germany, and all of Europe ... Someday, they will become crowded there ... and they will go to Russia.
                    The main thing that I did after the birth of my daughter was her Russian citizenship fellow
                    At the moment, of course, Germany remains one of the most socially protected countries, but this is temporarily IMHO .....
                    1. bouncyhunter
                      bouncyhunter 8 November 2018 18: 59
                      +2
                      Quote: LMN
                      "Mayflower" .. who is this?)

                      Max, are you kidding me? The Mayflower is the ship on which the Founding Fathers of the United States arrived.
                      Quote: LMN
                      At the moment, of course, Germany remains one of the most socially protected countries, but this is temporarily IMHO

                      For some reason I tend to agree with you. And at the same time to say "thank you" to Grandma Murkel (not to be remembered for the night). soldier
                      1. LMN
                        LMN 8 November 2018 19: 09
                        +3
                        Quote: bouncyhunter
                        Quote: LMN
                        "Mayflower" .. who is this?)

                        Max, are you kidding me? The Mayflower is the ship on which the Founding Fathers of the United States arrived.


                        Funny, I didn't know about the Mayflower .. laughing "Live and learn" yes
          2. LMN
            LMN 8 November 2018 18: 00
            +5



            Here it is, the difference between VO and NI .. yes

            Maybe VO should not engage in not catching "villains", I have already been caught 4 times)) a criminal and a swearing man laughing and advance to the masses and have a word?
            1. bouncyhunter
              bouncyhunter 8 November 2018 18: 28
              +3
              Quote: LMN
              Maybe VO should not engage in not catching "villains", I have already been caught 4 times)) a criminal and a swearing man laughing but to advance to the masses and have a word?

              I read the right words, but I’m sure that they will remain only words. Hazy future ...
          3. pvv113
            pvv113 8 November 2018 18: 45
            +2
            Quote: bouncyhunter
            NI does not bother about the content of articles

            As the famous emperor said: "Money does not smell!" This is just one of those cases when they make money on sewers.
            Pasha hi !
            1. bouncyhunter
              bouncyhunter 8 November 2018 18: 47
              +3
              Volodya, good evening! hi
              Quote: pvv113
              This is just one of those cases when they earn money on sewers.

              It is true, and not only NI sins this. wink
              1. pvv113
                pvv113 8 November 2018 18: 49
                +2
                I agree with you, therefore, I wrote that it is one of many, but NI is a very typical example, and it’s always on hearing
                1. bouncyhunter
                  bouncyhunter 8 November 2018 18: 52
                  +3
                  Quote: pvv113
                  always heard

                  Raspiaren - that's on hearing. But as an example - it is indisputable !!! yes
                  1. pvv113
                    pvv113 8 November 2018 18: 54
                    +1
                    Quote: bouncyhunter
                    Raspiaren - that's on hearing

                    By the way, pay attention, the more useless the product, the cooler its advertising wink
                    1. bouncyhunter
                      bouncyhunter 8 November 2018 19: 04
                      +3
                      Volodya, I have been saying for a long time: "A normal product does not need advertising." How long have you seen an advertisement for Komandirskie watches on TV or online? Or something like that (specifically Russian)? And what - in Russia nifiga do not know how to do? And who shod the flea?
                      1. pvv113
                        pvv113 8 November 2018 19: 08
                        +2
                        From here, we can conclude: advertising is not an engine of trade, but an attempt to sell stale goods
                      2. bouncyhunter
                        bouncyhunter 8 November 2018 19: 12
                        +2
                        Quote: pvv113
                        advertising is not an engine of trade, but an attempt to sell stale goods

                        This is what we observe from the filing of the "partners", and their boarding crowbar.
  9. IvanT
    IvanT 8 November 2018 11: 24
    0
    Budget out
  10. Campanella
    Campanella 8 November 2018 11: 46
    0
    They know perfectly well that Russia is not going to attack anyone, it only defends itself, defending its interests and responds to the challenges of the political bullies of the Anglo-Saxon flood, all their lives striving to live at someone else's expense.
  11. Old26
    Old26 8 November 2018 11: 51
    -1
    Not a single system created by the United States in the 20th century ever worked, not Safeguard in the 1960s, or Reagan's Star Wars program in the 1980s. Also, all the systems that are now being worked on in the United States do not guarantee that they can stop missiles.

    NI has, as always, "revealed the greatest secret." Although it was never a secret. NOT ONE ABM system can protect anything from a massive attack. In the same way, our Moscow missile defense system is not capable of intercepting a large number of targets.
    Building offensive weapons is simpler and cheaper than developing missile defense. If, for example, for a 100% guarantee of defeating a monoblock missile, for example, 3 interceptors are required, then when 10 goals plus 3-4 heavy false targets (not counting all other debris) go to the target, 0 dozens of interceptors will already be needed to intercept. And replacing monoblocks with homing is nevertheless easier than dramatically increasing the number of interceptors, while not having a 100% guarantee that everything will fly

    Quote: Andrey Chistyakov
    Well, yes ... 50t. they put their own. Just a mere.

    Well, in Afghanistan we also put our own EMNip 13 thousand, despite the fact that our enemy had practically no air defense

    Quote: figvam
    the US does not have a full-fledged missile defense system capable of repelling the blow of even the currently existing ballistic missiles.

    Under the guise of a missile defense, the Yankees did not pull up defensive, but offensive systems for delivering the first disarming strike, we definitely need to do the same, they don’t understand another language.

    Creating such a system based on existing weapons is impossible in principle. In the distant future, when systems based on energy transfer are used as weapons, then MAY BE. But again, no guarantee
    Launchers in Romania and Poland, of course, under certain conditions, can be used to launch the KR, but a cruise missile has never been a means of delivering a first, disarming strike. Is it only in a country with a complete lack of air defense. For a subsonic missile to the target will fly an hour and a half. What the hell is a disarming blow ...
  12. lecturer
    lecturer 8 November 2018 12: 39
    0
    The Americans have finally begun to pay attention to the words: "The United States has no protection against Russian missiles, and it never did". And then all "exclusivity and exclusivity!" EVERYTHING! "swam", a helpless "air-trough"! - there is nowhere to go further ...
  13. Ros 56
    Ros 56 8 November 2018 13: 18
    +2
    But tomorrow we’ll try whether they have protection or not. Prepare an order.
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 8 November 2018 13: 27
      0
      Forty minutes of flying time, as the foreman said, or is it better to start hastily, just to pour half a liter into glasses and spread paste on bread?
  14. Larum
    Larum 8 November 2018 13: 36
    -2
    So what? for normal, it was known that neither they nor we were able to intercept the falling hypersonic warheads.
    And for inadequate and there is nothing to try.
    Ni Pushkova just fulfills money. The article is empty.
  15. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 8 November 2018 14: 15
    0
    Therefore, the United States is better to be friends with Russia, and not to escalate the situation ....
  16. Berkut24
    Berkut24 8 November 2018 17: 29
    +1
    The US has no protection against Russian missiles, and never has been

    ... and will not be in the foreseeable future. But nobody will interfere with the use of money.
  17. Karislav
    Karislav 9 November 2018 10: 04
    -1
    Before Tsushima, we also spoke ...