NationStates

The New California Republic wrote:

Oil exporting People wrote:
And, again, that's not true. NIKE missiles carrying nuclear warheads are sufficient to defeat MIRV-tipped ICBMs and, given current arsenal sizes, more than a valid option.

ABM systems with nuclear warheads are not a valid counter to MIRVs or decoys, inability to deal with them is one of the reasons why A-35 was retired, and it is debatable whether newer systems like Gorgon and the much older NIKE can deal with them.

ABM systems are more than sufficient to defeat MIRVs, that's part of the basis of AEGIS which we've had since the 80s. The real reason NIKE got retired is that McNamara was a fuck and because of 'Nam. The newer missiles we're deploying can be easily used to foster a new generation of ABM defenses, indeed, we've partially already got one in place in America and attempted to build one in Europe.

Oil exporting People wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:ABM systems with nuclear warheads are not a valid counter to MIRVs or decoys, inability to deal with them is one of the reasons why A-35 was retired, and it is debatable whether newer systems like Gorgon and the much older NIKE can deal with them.

ABM systems are more than sufficient to defeat MIRVs, that's part of the basis of AEGIS which we've had since the 80s.

They really aren't, especially with modern MIRVs combined with decoys that would saturate the targeting screen, but OK. One of the reasons that SDI failed was its inability to deal with saturation, which is the inevitable Russian counter to SDI and ABM in general in the event of a massed nuclear strike. NIKE would also fail in that regard. Target tracking and discrimination was the Achilles heel of systems like NIKE and SDI in general. The entire system implemented as a shield over the USA would be economically unfeasible and easily countered; more so if the decoys employ jammers and chaff.

WW3 is either going to be really soon or in a while.

The New California Republic wrote:They really aren't, especially with modern MIRVs combined with decoys that would saturate the targeting screen, but OK. One of the reasons that SDI failed was its inability to deal with saturation, which is the inevitable Russian counter to SDI and ABM in general in the event of a massed nuclear strike. NIKE would also fail in that regard. Target tracking and discrimination was the Achilles heel of systems like NIKE and SDI in general. The entire system implemented as a shield over the USA would be economically unfeasible and easily countered; more so if the decoys employ jammers and chaff.

You're failing to account for massive transformations in missile technology since then, especially in ABM defenses since the U.S. now had multiple such systems in action. You're also failing to account for the fact this isn't the Cold War with roughly 3,000 ICBMs between the Superpowers, but instead an environment where both have about 1,000.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:WW3 is either going to be really soon or in a while.

Way to narrow it down.

I'd be screwed an AFB is no more than 20-25 miles from my house.

Oil exporting People wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:They really aren't, especially with modern MIRVs combined with decoys that would saturate the targeting screen, but OK. One of the reasons that SDI failed was its inability to deal with saturation, which is the inevitable Russian counter to SDI and ABM in general in the event of a massed nuclear strike. NIKE would also fail in that regard. Target tracking and discrimination was the Achilles heel of systems like NIKE and SDI in general. The entire system implemented as a shield over the USA would be economically unfeasible and easily countered; more so if the decoys employ jammers and chaff.

You're failing to account for massive transformations in missile technology since then, especially in ABM defenses since the U.S. now had multiple such systems in action. You're also failing to account for the fact this isn't the Cold War with roughly 3,000 ICBMs between the Superpowers, but instead an environment where both have about 1,000.

Actually I am accounting for it, but I'm also accounting for MIRV technology having kept pace as well, including the use of (as I have said) multiple sophisticated decoys included in each MIRV bus with jammers and chaff, which would exponentially multiply the number of targets from around 1,600 warheads to tens or even hundreds of thousands of targets. The targeting screens for any ABM system would become a clusterfuck of false and ghosted targets. The Russians have also been hardening the MIRV bus and each warhead against radiation and heat, making them much harder to kill with nuclear-tipped ABM systems. We are rapidly approaching an age whereby nothing short of a direct hit or a near miss from a nuclear-tipped ABM will be sufficient to kill them, and will warrant higher and higher yields on the warheads of the ABM system for them to remain effective, possibly to a point that becomes unjustifiable.

Christian Confederation wrote:I'd be screwed an AFB is no more than 20-25 miles from my house.

Which one?

The New California Republic wrote:Actually I am accounting for it, but I'm also accounting for MIRV technology having kept pace as well, including the use of (as I have said) multiple sophisticated decoys included in each MIRV bus with jammers and chaff, which would exponentially multiply the number of targets from around 1,600 warheads to tens or even hundreds of thousands of targets. The targeting screens for any ABM system would become a clusterfuck of false and ghosted targets. The Russians have also been hardening the MIRV bus and each warhead against radiation and heat, making them much harder to kill with nuclear-tipped ABM systems. We are rapidly approaching an age whereby nothing short of a direct hit or a near miss from a nuclear-tipped ABM will be sufficient to kill them, and will warrant higher and higher yields on the warheads of the ABM system for them to remain effective, possibly to a point that becomes unjustifiable.

..and nuclear tipped missiles account for that in response.

Live in the southern hemisphere in a place like Brazil. There are not as many targets in the global south.

UniversalCommons wrote:Live in the southern hemisphere in a place like Brazil. There are not as many targets in the global south.

There are no targets in the Global South, hell there isn't much to be afraid of in the Northern Hemisphere either.

-Ocelot- wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:Hypothetically, how should one prepare for World War III?

I imagine having a private nuclear bunker built in a likely neutral country would be useful?

Maybe have one of those hideouts like in the Cloverfield bunker?

There is nothing you can do.

In the event of a nuclear conflict, the damage caused to the economy and the environment would be so big thorough that no society would recover, including neutral countries. Nuclear fallout doesn't care about borders and no country can support it's population without being part of the technologically advanced globalized economy. The ones killed by the initial blasts would be the luckiest, in my opinion.

Even if you had a huge bunker with unlimited supplies, depression would get the best of you eventually. That or some other malfunction you couldn't solve with the tools stored inside the bunker. Then there is the possibility of getting sick or injured. Getting out of the bunker is a big "if" because the entire world could be covered in nuclear fallout that would take many years to clear and most places would be devoid of people anyway.

What are the chances of NA's League of Legends Server still running in a nuclear exchange scenario?

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:WW3 is either going to be really soon or in a while.

Like within this year soon?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

-Ocelot- wrote:
There is nothing you can do.

In the event of a nuclear conflict, the damage caused to the economy and the environment would be so big thorough that no society would recover, including neutral countries. Nuclear fallout doesn't care about borders and no country can support it's population without being part of the technologically advanced globalized economy. The ones killed by the initial blasts would be the luckiest, in my opinion.

Even if you had a huge bunker with unlimited supplies, depression would get the best of you eventually. That or some other malfunction you couldn't solve with the tools stored inside the bunker. Then there is the possibility of getting sick or injured. Getting out of the bunker is a big "if" because the entire world could be covered in nuclear fallout that would take many years to clear and most places would be devoid of people anyway.

What are the chances of NA's League of Legends Server still running in a nuclear exchange scenario?

Near zero

Thermodolia wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
What are the chances of NA's League of Legends Server still running in a nuclear exchange scenario?

Near zero

Not that there be anyone left to play on them.

Kowani wrote:

Shofercia wrote:There was no World War between 1815 and 1914. If humanity can do it without nukes for a century, humanity can do it with nukes for two centuries or more!

I mean, the 7 years war was arguably a World War, so take that however you like...

Might want to check the dates on that one, chief

The National Salvation Front for Russia wrote:

Kowani wrote:I mean, the 7 years war was arguably a World War, so take that however you like...

1756 – 1763

Your ninja skills are quite good

Shofercia wrote:

Kowani wrote:I mean, the 7 years war was arguably a World War, so take that however you like...

Might want to check the dates on that one, chief

The National Salvation Front for Russia wrote:1756 – 1763

Your ninja skills are quite good

What, didn’t you know that George Washington started the war when he lead Union forces against French Legionaies during the Crimean War?

Shofercia wrote:Might want to check the dates on that one, chief

To be honest, the entirety of the 1840s-1870s was a world war of sorts.

Thermodolia wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
What are the chances of NA's League of Legends Server still running in a nuclear exchange scenario?

Near zero

then it sounds like I wouldn't like World War III

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Near zero

then it sounds like I wouldn't like World War III

Because up until that a Third World War was a bundle of fun.

Heloin wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
then it sounds like I wouldn't like World War III

Because up until that a Third World War was a bundle of fun.

If its a couple of big battles and maybe a few nukes launched and it could all be contained in some way, maybe I could have said "Well... I wish it didn't happen but I'm fine with its happening."

However, as soon as I find out that my online gaming may be at risk, this is something that I cannot accept.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Near zero

then it sounds like I wouldn't like World War III

Nuclear conflicts don’t tend to be fun for anyone since many people will die.

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
then it sounds like I wouldn't like World War III

Nuclear conflicts don’t tend to be fun for anyone since many people will die.

I doubt any conflict in the modern day goes nuclear.

Oil exporting People wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Nuclear conflicts don’t tend to be fun for anyone since many people will die.

I doubt any conflict in the modern day goes nuclear.

It might if Russia got desperate. Or if NK actually did launch, or if nuclear terrorism occurs. Or Operation Sampson goes into effect

Thermodolia wrote:

Oil exporting People wrote:
I doubt any conflict in the modern day goes nuclear.

It might if Russia got desperate. Or if NK actually did launch, or if nuclear terrorism occurs. Or Operation Sampson goes into effect

A North Korean launch and Nuclear terrorism are the only real threats I see; even then, damage would be extremely localized. The other two I just can't see happening.