US to test IRBM in November, service in 2024

marinecorpstimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/03/13/pentagon-plans-tests-of-long-banned-types-of-missiles/

>one project is a low-flying cruise missile with a potential range of about 1,000 kilometers; the other would be a ballistic missile with a range of roughly 3,000 to 4,000 kilometers

Do you think Mr. Xi is going to be happy with Mr. Putin over how this INF mess has ended?

Attached: missilerangeguam.png (1292x971, 2.37M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nfC0PV1M1gw
youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

thank you president trump

Why were these type of missiles banned while ICBMs were allowed to stay in service?

Because reptillian sulphuric lifeforms of the interstellar demon aliens variety.

ICBM launched from the US would take half an hour to reach the USSR/Russia.

But a IRBM launched from West Germany would have taken minutes to hit Moscow. Scared the Soviets enough to agree to them being banned.

Because ICBM's are under strategic control within a nation's borders.

IRBM's were being forward deployed to germany and given to generals to use on the assumption they would follow the rules given to them. These nuclear weapons were being mixed in with conventional and chemical forces.

Tl:dr - IRBM's increase the chance of a nuclear weapon being used tactically which can spiral out of control.

there was also the issue of local sabotage or "appropriation", the US fixed it with their gravity bombs by designing better PALs and designing the bombs to be tamper-resistant, but it's quite hard to design a huge missile to be safe from being fired

They better be designated Pershing 3
One of if not the best looking ballistic missiles

Attached: Pershing_II_-_4th_test_launch.jpg (2400x3000, 1.53M)

Deploy IRBM's in poland. Ensure first strike capability on russia.

And Japan.

China has the most to be pissed about. Only the US were following the rules. Russia at least had to try to look like they are following them. China didn't even have to do that, and has plenty of IRBMs deployed.

Ill be honest. Even seeing some of the retarded decision making officers can make first hand, I would trust any general with nukes before donald "why dont we just nuke syria?" Trump.

>Why were these type of missiles banned while ICBMs were allowed to stay in service?

It was a deescalation agreement to stop a mexican standoff.

Anyone who thinks the US leaving the INF treaty was actually about Russia hasn't been paying attention to the western pacific.

>REEEEE

Deploy these in taiwan, poland, the baltic states, and japan. Completely eliminate the possibility of russian and chinese first strike chances.

deploy them in my tight ass!

Attached: example-7404.jpg (1024x1024, 67K)

Who gives a fuck its not like the europes will let us base them anywhere. or japan or sk.

Poland will let the US do whatever, they don't give a shit

>Why were these type of missiles banned while ICBMs were allowed to stay in service?

Because IRBMs in western service threatened the USSR from turkey and germany. and Soviet IRBMs were very mobile and could wipe out all of western europe because we could never track them all down.

Both sides got something when they went down.

Probably one of these that are used as targets in BMD tests.

youtube.com/watch?v=nfC0PV1M1gw

So they invented that russia was using them to be able to mass produce and put them on the chinese border, nice, and they still say china is no threat

Lol by 2024, China would be using SRBM with HGV making it effectively an ICBM making whatever designs the Americans have effectively moot.

First in flight cucks Americans rule the sky. (EAGLE SCREECH)

YEEHAW

Attached: century series.jpg (541x462, 157K)

So now chinks and russkies will deploy their IRBM to Cuba. Nice.

Can someone translate this into english?

Desculpa amigo, pero onions de california e no hablo bien nuestra secunda lingua

Su madre el sucko my ballsos

This just seems silly after they started putting warheads on submarines. The cat has been out of the bag for a long time.

mutts' logic
>There is no way China can catch up with our "jet engines" because of decades of "know-how"
>we can catch up with their IRBM development after decades of neglect because muh freedom

>Do you think Mr. Xi is going to be happy with Mr. Putin over how this INF mess has ended?

i dont see the problem if they can create an icbm pretty sure they can make an icbm

Attached: 800px-PLA_ballistic_missiles_range.jpg (800x492, 156K)

They already have IRBMs. The problem is now the US will have them too and can use them to cuck the everliving shit out of Winnie the Poohs dreams of expansion. I hope we do what we did in the Cold War and give discretion to fire the things at a tactical level, good bye Chink first strike advantage.

how exactly irbm's will stop china from expanding?

are you one of those that think usa will directly attack another nuclear power?

I M P R E S S I V E
Q U A N T U M

Seems like the US never had to catch up if its already testing a ballistic missile this year.

How many will it take for China to have to start spending serious amounts of cash on ABM?

I hadn't realized how much larger the F-106 was over the F-102.

Mmm. Fuckme eyes of truth.

This user get's it. What are the odds a communist country falls for it again?

Attached: 1348164683298.jpg (1600x1212, 146K)

China already spends on ABM.

US IRBMs wont change anything. China will completely destroy all US bases that are situated on small islands, while the large chinese mainland will protect China's dispersed assets.

And if the US thinks about using their IRBMs to attack Chinese civilian targets, look forward to the complete end of the No First Use and Minimum Deterrence policy for Chinese nuclear weapons.

>China already spends on ABM.

Can you even name it?

>look forward to the complete end of the No First Use and Minimum Deterrence policy for Chinese nuclear weapons.
China has nowhere near enough ICBMs for MAD to be a consideration
That's an extremely bad idea for them.

300% likely, if for no other reason than "not looking weak"

Bet we can goad them into it.

>Looks guys! I brought up Trump again!

Kek. Who's feeding you the figures on Chinese ICBMs?

US DOD and DIA, and China itself saying "among the nuclear-weapon states, China ... possesses the smallest nuclear arsenal,"
Chang, you literally don't have enough plutonium to make more than a couple hundred warheads. And not all of those warheads are ICBM capable

Attached: xueb6oouot111.png (1024x645, 605K)

Sure.

That's why the Amerilards in Washington are only now crying about China after Clinton and Israel sold them our nuclear tech 20 years ago?

Attached: 6CC04D13-D220-4362-8233-17E5C2880537.jpg (657x1137, 390K)

What point are you even trying to make?

The point is that the special needs people in Washington had no foresight until it was already too late.

>Bankrupt China using "Star Wars 2: Return of the Space Lasers"
Do it

Son I don't think you understand how MAD works

>abm meme

when you will realise that its a waste of time? if any ABM had any amount of success neither russia or usa would have created literall nukes for their last line of defence in order to elliminate other nukes

dude australia sold to china a fucking aircraft carrier with much of the tech on it still intact

>if any ABM had any amount of success neither russia or usa would have created literall nukes for their last line of defence in order to elliminate other nukes

ABM's do work. which is why Both Russia and the US agreed to limit their deployment for 30 years to only two sites and 100 missiles.

As for needing nukes as a last line of defence, THAAD, SM3 and GMD all use hit to kill warheads.

name one system that had more than 50% success FROM ANYONE against icbm's

>the system has to be a one shot kill to be effective.

THAAD hasn't failed a test since 1999

GMD hasn't missed since 2012 since new upgrades were brought in. Not that it matters because this is testing before the missile enters service.

thaad hasnt been tested on a single icbm user only on mrbm and irbm so far plus it has failed quite a lot

THAAD is still able to intercept an ICBM if it's located more or less on the target area.

thaad isnt FAST ENOUGH for this kind of job user
the only way someone can stop a fucking icbm is on the initial stages before the second stage separation happens and reentry begins

once the payload reach its apogee its all over
the YAL1 was made with that in mind but they quickly realise that no one on earth can provide the energy requirements for it to work properly

>it's about nukes

No. the original cold war ban was about nukes, but the modern benefits to the US of repealing the ban come from using conventional IRBMs against China.

The ABL worked fine in boost phase and carried enough energy for many shots. The problem was loitering too near to the launch site.

There is also the fact that using nukes to shoot down nukes will leave you blind after the first intercept.

exactly my point it had to be in less than 150km from the target
if it needs to be lets say in the middle of the atlantic that shit will need a fusion reactor to power up a single shot if ever

Not necessarily.
Submarine you don't know the world is over, and if you're under attack, you don't shoot a nuke at another sub.

I don't know how these missiles work, if it requires launch codes, or you just put in coordinates and Joe turns the key and presses a button. Either way, a general being enveloped by the enemy may use his nuke defensively, in a state of panic, to prevent being overrun. There's a lot more emotion and rash acts in a land battle.

Time to target. The US and UK didn't really care because their deterrents could survive a first strike, but continental NATO members were very upset that they couldn't do anything, so that lead to the development and deployment of the Pershing 2 and GLCM. The GLCM had the benefit of being hard to detect its launch and hard to detect in the air and the Pershing was fast and a MARV. The US benefitted far more from INF than the USSR did.

>don't pay attention to trends

>metrics when it comes to the end game must taken into account

just....dont

>do 10 intercept tests
>first 6 fail
>following 4 succeed

nononono it has a sub 50% intercept rate

>Cramming more shit onto Guam
Or we could put the missiles on platforms that can actually survive an attack. Like a sub or a plane that can be based anywhere. You know, the things we already have.

Who said Guam was the only option?

We can't put more stuff on Guam, it might tip over.
youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

We need to remove Duterte, though I wonder if the PRC could install anti-missile defenses in the South China Sea.

How much can we pay the Japanese to use Okinawa?

Shut up, the both of you.

We pay by guaranteeing their sovereignty and that anyone who attacks Japan attacks America.

>not chiding all three

How will this IRBM stop the invasion?

Of Taiwan? China moving assets inland will no longer make them safe from attack.

Of the US. Who gives a fuck about Taiwan and Chinks when we're being conquered.

.50 social credits have been deposited in your account.

t. buttmad beaner

P O O I N T H E L O O
S U P E R P O W E R

5 Rupees where deposited into your terracotta bowl.

If you are going to bump the thread at least make it a sequitur.

That's a weird way to say jew

ABMs do not work as required. The GMD or something has a 50% intercept rate for 2 missiles. The treaty was signed to limit an ABM arms race, not because it posed any real threat to MAD.
>missile tests
Literally canned exercises with non-manuvuering targets and the trajectory pre set so the ABM is in the optimal position.

Attached: 1502339043361.png (700x592, 160K)

Probably not, because it's a start to bridging a capability gap in East Asia (that we ignored in favor 20 years of fucking around in the ME). For the longest time, it was the US and allies like Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea under the shadow of NK and Chinese IRBMs - which are great for neutralizing airfields.

Now, we'll be able to answer back with the deterrent of instant sunshine - instead of needlessly kneecapping ourselves for something that wasn't even really be followed by anyone that we actually wanted to comply with it.

>that we ignored in favor 20 years of fucking around in the ME

Are you even aware of what the INF treaty was?

That we ignored the growing Chinese rocket threat in the Pacific.

>we

If the US ignored it we would still be in the INF treaty.

it has literally 0 intercepts against icbm's it simply too slow to keep up
unless you somehow gonna convince us that a mach 9 missile is able to catch up with a mach 20-22 fucking missile
at which point you are not only breaking the rules of physics but you are going to a laughing stock

didnt you said the same thing for georgia and ukraine?

The US based more ships and aircraft in the Pacific in response to the Chinese, not immobile and vulnerable ground based missiles. Withdrawing from the INF was pure posturing.

>intercepting a missile coming at you is actually chasing it down

Attached: 1392838433110.png (243x200, 70K)

And what does withdrawing from the INF treaty allow the US to do?

US troops are stationed in Georgia and Ukraine?

nothing. There is no where to base those IRBMs near China except for Guam. However, that also means China can get rid of them in an event of a war. They are worthless

physics 101

thaad has x2 lower relative velocity
thaad has x3 lower relative speed

at least try to sound reaonable instead of shitposting

they do have in georgia