Depends on how much advance warning you have. If it's launched over the North Pole it's a decent shot (maybe 60%?) because of the early-warning radar system and the gigantic Canadian buffer zone on the other side of it. It goes down from there. Or up, if there's a carrier group right in the middle of the missile's trajectory.

The US would have about 7 minutes to kiss its *** goodbye. All of the known ICBM launch sites are monitored by the US so at least you'd know it's coming. I doubt the government would say anything until after it happened though. If at all.

Really though the amount of destruction caused by a nuclear weapon is grossly overexaggerated. Hell, the myth that we have enough nukes to kill the human race a dozen times over is still around even though it's completely false. It would take pretty much every nuke on Earth just to conduct an exterminatus on the mainland US alone.

Pretty low. Uranium and plutonium aren't terribly radioactive unless they're reacting. Alpha and beta radiation are pretty easy to stop (and it's what would set off a geiger counter). Neutron radiation is a bit more tricky but it's absorbed by concrete and water.


the DHS has been pushing for ports to get their act together but the companies are waffling over the price.

I hope you didn't just miss my glaringly obvious and terrible joke.

I didn't realize that the US missile-defense system actually worked.

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=166&a=1478

Neat.

Don't worry guys, we spent all our money on the Osprey so that pilots could pick up chicks at bars by saying "hey, I fly a bastardized helicopter plane that flips over easy".

We can stop the nukes with those.

Oh wait... ****...

Jon, what good is a carrier group going to be against an ICBM? There is no current floating technology in the U.S. Navy that can touch an ICBM.

(Give us another year to tinker with SAM 3s, lasers, and KEKVs)

Freelancer, the answer is, as of right now, we'd need about a 48 hour warning and the direction the missile will be coming from just to give us enough time to prep our two operational airborne laser systems and get them circuiting around a region where they might see the ICBM launch.

The case with Iran is a little more frightening though. They don't have ICBMs. They have modified long-range surface-to-surface missiles though, and access to civilian vessels. The Russians figured out a long time ago that they could detonate a single mid-sized nuclear warhead somewhere between 200 and 300 miles above Offutt AFB, Nebraska that would create an EMP large enough to black out the entire mainland U.S., as well as most of Canada and Mexico. Imagine what could happen if Iran detonates a small-sized nuclear warhead about 75 miles above northern California, or Virginia.

Well, I knew it was a joke, I just wasn't really sure about what the whole Idaho reference meant. Call me uneducated.

That's just what I was thinking. Hitler actually practiced what he preached: extermination of Jews while the world waited idly by until it was too late. I guess people didn't think believe he would do what he was saying, but...

That's what I'm afraid of with this Achmadinenotevengoingtotrytospellthisjad guy, and our HUGE western bureaucracies that like to waste progress and time.

Granted, I don't believe Iran has the capability of a workhorse like Germany but Id rather not find out

But watch out for the Iranian women police!

Things are a little bit different at this point. The Israelis aren't the same Jews who were worked over by Hitler's Germany. Iran is behind the curve (though admittedly closer than they should be) and Israel is crazy after years of unrelenting war.

It'll be curious to see what happens with Iran making these stupid political moves. I don't see financial embargoes long in their future.

couldn't agree more.
and if we only assassinate Admiral Ackbar... er... whats his name, we would still have an insane Iran to deal with and we would have just given them more fuel.

if they bring it over the Mexican border... probably no chance at all... or even through the port of LA. probably little to no chance of detecting it.



i gotta say though i would much rather have these guys as an ally than an enemy though.:hist101:

Up until Iraq the Pro-America(or at least non-confrontational) reformists and moderates in Iran were starting to make progress in taking the country. Iraq set that back to where the islamists had a good hold on power. Just recently the Iranians are starting to vote out the islamists because of the hell they are wrecking on the Iranian economy, human rights, etc. The Iranian President is losing support, so he does what he knows will shore up his support: a conflict with the West. Outright attacks on Iran would only accomplish in solidifying it into a rabid anti-American islamic state even longer, and is thus the very last option that should be pursued as it is ultimately counter-productive.

The Iranian President is using this for support, so I think it's best to turn it back on him. Start negotiatons with the reformist leaders and the moderate conservatives(who won big in the 2006 elections for the Assembly of Experts) and do something to the effect of the US trading the captured Iranians from Iraq for the British Soldiers. This way it dissolves the crisis that the islamists thrive on, making them look like the crazies they are, and makes the reformists/moderates look like they know how to handle the West without causing bloodshed. This will win a lot of support for the reformists/moderates and will be much better in the long run. I'm betting that if this is the course that is taken then in the next parliament election you will see big gains by the reformists and moderates and that will lead to a lot of changes.

however if it doesn't lead to big gains by the reformists and lots of change, you can bet that instead we will see many more confrontations such as this, simply because they now know no one will do a damn thing about it. unless there is something going on behind closed doors which the public is not aware of... and im perfectly willing to accept that, that may be the case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFyBH-z6c1w

And this is different from starting war and solidfying an anti-West islamist government.....how? At least with negotiating with the rational parts of the government you can show that the islamists constant deluge of "Fear America, they're coming for us!" is wrong.

That's besides that it will work. Being able to stand up against the West is the only thing the islamists have, so if the reformists/moderates take that away from them, and being able to do it without bloodshed, there is far less reason to empower the islamists. And then when the islamists get so pissed off they resort to terrorism on their own country, guess who'll be there to help them out, further solidifying a co-operative relationship?

Its all starting to make sense now...seriously though. I never listened to the B-52's, so thats why I totally missed the reference.