Start of a rocket


Russia has more missile defense facilities than US nuclear ICBMs

US nuclear missiles were useless for striking Russia.

A recent report released by the United States indicates the fact that Washington has 1750 nuclear warheads for ballistic intercontinental missiles that can strike at Russia. As it turned out, this is not enough to penetrate the defense of Russian missile defense systems even in the event of a massive missile strike.

According to experts, even if there is a military conflict between Russia and the United States and the United States decides to use nuclear weapons, the number of nuclear warheads that are in the arsenal of this country is simply not enough to break through the defense of Russian borders.

To date, the Russian army is armed with about 20 sets of Triumph C-400 air defense systems, and only enough of them to repel half of the US attacks. Given the fact that in the event of a large-scale strike, Washington is unlikely to be able to use more than 50% of the nuclear arsenal, Russian missile defense systems are quite enough to bring down all of them, and this without taking into account the large number of S-300 air defense systems.

“While the United States relied on the creation of nuclear weapons, Russia has made significant progress in developing countermeasures. In the event of a large-scale conflict, Russia will be able to bring down 90% of the missiles launched, however, the United States does not have suitable missile defense systems, and therefore, a retaliatory strike by Russia will literally turn the enemy’s territory into a wasteland ”, - the expert notes.

Alexander okstitsya what a military secret.
This is a secret only for Uri-patriots, who have already shot down the entire US nuclear arsenal on approach.)

And on what basis do you write how the cover of Moscow is provided? If you write the truth, then be subject to criminal prosecution for disclosing information constituting a military secret.

And where is the rule that you need to shoot missiles with a nuclear warhead separately from other missiles? / simple / ... If rockets fly, then surely a mix, so that not everyone is caught ...

podmoskovie ne Rossia

and Moscow region is not Russia! you are beyond the Moscow Ring Road

here they wrote our RESPONSE Punch, this explains a lot in the article about who the "first"

About two years ago, the Americans had an article .. they write there ... that about 65-70% of mine-based missiles simply can’t take off ... they wrote and it’s good if they do not explode at the start .. We checked a few and almost all cables came across nibbled by rats

do they have? will they fly? But JPS is not breaking?

For any ICBM, it will break through the defense, this is a hyper sound right above the enemy’s head, the percentage of interception is negligible, but with other carriers it’s easier.

I'd rather "Carbon Monoxide" watch on TV.)

Woke up??
4 anti-aircraft missile regiments S-400 took up combat duty in the suburbs in 2016)))

In connection with the release of new anti-missiles on the S-300 and S-400, for practically guaranteed destruction of even cruise missiles, not to mention ballistic, according to recent tests, two missiles are enough.

and what will they shoot down 10000 cruise missiles?

Passer-by, read the press in the public domain first.

you should try first, the result will be even more effective

And the expert knows how much the S-400 complex needs to launch missiles at a flying nuclear warhead to bring it down with a probability of at least 0,95.
And why does the Moscow missile defense (and only from a limited missile strike) provide the a-135 Amur complex and not the s-400 iksperd knows?


Best in the world of aviation