Topic: RUSSIA develop electromagnetic missiles! (Read 222 times)

This is also the reason why the US doesn't get rid of Putin to install their own puppet and be done with it: They make sure you understand they can hurt back as well as you do.

Your fantasy commenting is not how real life works. The US does invest too much money in the military, and you better do well to justify it, because words don't make actions and people will get angry if the toys don't justify their cost. But the US is not mighty invincible, it can be hurt, that is why all departments have to work so hard to avoid or leave the military always as the last resort.

In a nuclear conflagration you just cannot stop ALL of them, that was the point of MAD, and its the reason everyone stopped from using nukes ever since (out of fear).

Now this EMP thing is nothing to write home about. Maybe its just some EMP mounted in a supersonic missile, maybe the idea is to launch those ahead to attempt jam the defenses before the ones with actual payload hit. The Russian (and Chinese?) deterrent works as follow: Enough numbers of supersonic missiles are still cheaper than, say an US carrier. And given enough numbers, some will pass. Only one needs to hit the carrier.

This is the anti us naval task force tactic they devised decades ago, and are continuing it. One keypoint is to make the Americans lose enough expensive toys so that people back home start questioning those responsible for the economic and human loses. And this is why you see so much emphasis in cruiser missile technology. No these have nothing to do with ICBMs, don't bring that because that is sub orbital stuff, not fly above the speed of sound close to the water surface or ground.

The Americans also have plenty of EMP things, but you should know this. The latest fashion is unmanned flying, but still probably more expensive than mundane supersonic missiles, yet cheaper than certain stealth planes and such.

No, the Russians are not attacking you so lower that pointless rhetoric (And Putin isn't going to get deterred by your comments in Bitcointalk). Military contenders for the USA? Realistically its just those two: Russia and China. Doesn't mean they have "more" firepower than you, but China certainly has more people and Russia more territory. Ask any military official and they rather engage some middle eastern country rather than those two; maybe not out of fear but out of cost, and human lives which tend to push the politicians against the wall and force their hands faster than the actual military opposition which will also play the attrition card, and lengthen the conflict like the ex-Yugoslavia conflict.

Rather than issuing threats no one here cares about (Seriously you are scaring no one with those "mighty" words), study what this is about and inquire in your own readiness and counter measures. That's what the actual professionals do anyway, solutions to problems.

Don't justify mistakes, How is that people died by the Iran attacks but it was covered up? Do you even remember what happened in Libya with the US embassy? Not all is "don't show the cards to the opponent", bad things do happen in conflicts. Maybe the cover was to give time to diplomacy and intelligence. The conflict did not escalate after all...

Yes I concur, death and devastation are terrible. I really do not want to hear about another war or see images in the media and the idea of nuclear war just makes me feel so sad. Thankfully I have never lived through real war where my country was invaded by another, the thought of being a victim to that scenario and considering what the millions of men, women and children who have lived through it have endured - is unthinkable - as would be looking at a huge mushroom cloud and waiting for the inevitable fallout.


Without doubt though you are correct because all countries know they cannot win against the USA (deterrence) but I can flip the comment you made and it will still be true: The best way to make sure it does not happen is for the USA to know that they cannot win against the Russian Federation (deterrence)

In a nuclear war there will be no winners because the last man/country standing will not have much left to preside over.

After 2023 Russia will be left without soviet nuclear arsenal and it's nuclear potential will be decreased significantly.

Russia can't even rise up it's own GDP upper 2013 high (in 2013 - 2 trillion, in 2019 - just 1.7) while even small countries like Ukraine will finally beat 2013 high in 2020. Russia will make it in 2023-2024 (if we believe in forecast of World Bank).

There no EMP missiles, there no new tanks, there no new nuclear rockets - only cartoons for russians how Russia will destroy Florida with hypersonic missiles (there no hypersonic missiles of course too, 10-20 maybe)

Do you believe that Russia has a weapon that cannot be detected? Something like missiles? I heard a rumor about that.

All war is terrible.. No nuclear bombs are not 100% clean.. Death and devastation are terrible..
I would absolutely NOT want any of this to occur no matter who won or lost..

The best way to make sure it does not happen is for them to know that they cannot win against the USA.. Deterrence..
The leaders know, but most common people do not..

I had no idea the US detonated over 1000 nuclear bombs but Eddie even if what you say about the US dominating absolutely in a war with Russian what would be the point if there was nothing left of the major cities around the world that were are all familiar with?

Whether a prolonged nuclear leak such as in the case of Chernobyl or Fukushima or whether the US dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nakasaki it will do serious damage. Nuclear bombs are a threat to all living life on our planet whether they are considered dirty or not, they will unleash devastating power of destruction once detonated and their effects for survivors and their future offspring (though debated) seems debilitating. Though it is a highly contentious issue it has been claimed that children are being born even today with various disabilities because their forefathers experienced the radioactive fallout and passed on their genetic mutations to their offspring. The US has denied this but the Japanese have made the claim.

Nuclear bombs are not as "dirty" as most people think.. Nothing compared to a Chernobyl or Fukushima.. (During Fukushima I was actually chatting with a nuclear engineer that happened to be a crypto trader)
The US alone have detonated over 1,000 nuclear bombs and the world is just fine.. Many even in our own deserts.. A nuclear bomb is a good quick clean burn as opposed to a dirty smolder..

Russia's nukes also mean almost nothing if we can zap them out of the sky.. I have my doubts that they would be effective against us unless they shot ridiculous amounts of them all at once, then many could hit, but then it would be all out war with no holding back where we would absolutely dominate..

Our military tech is so advanced that we may as well be aliens compared to basically any other country..
We spend more money on just our top secret projects than other countries spend in total..

I see no reason why the US and Russian will go to war. The US did nothing while the Russians invaded and then annexed Crimea because Ukraine was on the verge of joining NATO. If that was not enough to provoke military action then nothing is. Even if either side stop developing fighter jets and missiles they have enough nuclear bombs between them to destroy the world many times over. If we use the snowball in hell analogy then neither population dwelling in major cities throughout Russia and the USA will have any chance if they fire nukes at each other.

I cannot see a conventional war between these two countries but there will continue to be proxy wars until or unless some drastic and dramatic push towards peace occurs.

We aren't going to show our cards/capabilities to stop a few little poppers that barely make it on their own anyway..
The same as we won't be showing off our top secret aircraft, and lose that unknown advantage, when a regular old plane designed in the 50's will do the job just fine..

I think it's been over 10 years now since we have admitted that we can take down airplanes with our lasers.. Add another 10 years of world class development to that and guess what level they are likely at now as far as anti-missile defense capability..

We didn't try to..


And you think that Russia has a snowball's chance in hell?

Iran just weeks back hit US bases in Iraq. Trump said nobody was hurt then it later emerged US personnel numbering 30+ were more than hurt and did need medical assistance. The US systems did not attempt to stop those 16 or so ballistic missiles. Iran also shot down a US drone late last year when it entered Iranian airspace. I honestly see nothing too impressive about that. Without a doubt the technology driving the US military is the best in the world but they do not ooze confidence.

No problem as long as China doesn't have them too? 7 powerful new weapons that  just showed off China's military...
https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-showing-off-new-weapons-likely-to-send-a-message-2019-1
China's been showing off a lot of new powerful weapons, and experts think they're sending a message.

They are probably the Russian version of Tesla self-driving cars.

thats actually not true, ultimately god is in controll, the superweapons of superpowers could easily become a burden as the state wouldn't be able to finance the financial infrastructure for those.

imagine usa having a homeless crisis while having a ton of weapons, but it could not work if those homeless crisis are being caused by racist driven immigrants.

Or risk your anti air missiless hitting a passenger airliner instead of some military fighter jets.


Why apart from Russia or US? Are weapons in the hands of these two not dangerous? They are both known to test them out in the field.

It's hard to be serious on that matter but I'll try.

It's known for any reasonable and educated individual that even thermonuclear synthesys won't be enough in terms of energy yield. Simple physics as is.

Reality is quite the opposite. The US representatives are moving their lips in non-stop mode to talk about non-existent "achievements" since early 1980s.

Boston Dynamics is one of notorious examples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCuG-KJacp8

Empty words and CGI imitations are the symbols of modern US technology.

The US were unable to protect their own military bases from old soviet-made junk dated by 1960s. Even more funny, their billion dollars worth defense systems have failed to deal with chinese-made drones bought on ebay. Meanwhile, they're spending $32 billion on the development of new armored vehicle while entire russian military budget is less than $30 billion. The US military industrial complex is able to serve as an example of inefficiency and fraudulent activity. Tones of money are burned for literally nothing.

[/quote]

The USA satellite, aircraft, naval vessel, and land mounted lasers travel at the speed of light, much faster and more quickly aimed than their stupid rockets..
If they shoot rocket propelled ICBMs at US, I think they will be scratching their heads wondering why they plopped into the ocean..

We agreed not to use our lasers against human targets at the Geneva convention, otherwise, we could just cut your skyscrapers/cities in half with them anywhere on the planet..
But we are free to zap any of your missiles out of the sky, satellites, and possibly even conventional equipment including some human casualties, all that we want..
But only when it is worth it to us to reveal our true power level, will we let our actual abilities be known..

All of the other countries brag about their top technology, while the USA keeps tight lipped about ours for decades, and is always decades ahead..

Those flying saucers you hear about. .. .. . . . those are probably ours..

Don't try it..

Those missiles would be very dangerous if there are countries that hold them apart from Russia or US.
I wonder how this system is going to work but I don't want to see them in use.
The tension in Middle East is on fire and i hope if it is a good idea to keep creating weapons that an be used there,

gotta laugh.. calling electronic devices deadly weapons and terrifying
if its using an antenna its probably a signal jammer

These missiles would be really useful against terrorists. For example, you can stop a massive ongoing drone attack by one shot instead of wasting costly interceptor missiles to deal with them separately.

Correct. I live in the USA, and do not see Russia as a military adversary. Not at all.