what do you mean by coin flip?

No.

GOLDEN SHOWER!!!

>>65604617
Dome! I mean dome

>>65604601
GMD intercept is about 56% success chance

>>65604718
Which is why we need Brilliant Pebbles v2.

>>65604718
It's actually about a 66% success rate per interceptor, and firing three of them would make a greater than 96% chance of success, but they decided it would be a better movie if everyone was just retarded and decided to let the missile hit us even though they had the tools to prevent it.

File: AC7_Stonehenge_Firing.jpg (1.14 MB, 1920x1080)

1.14 MB JPG

Meteors hate this one simple trick

>>65604597
always has been, yes

imagine believing that our first strike capability is still limited to technology that was perfected in the 1960s

>>65604750
Well if meteors hate ai bullshit, then I'm pro-meteor.

>>65604742
It's more that the movie isn't about a successful interception, it's about what people do in the time between knowing the outcome and it actually happening. If you stop the missile then there's just no movie.

>>65605040
The problem is that our system in place practically guarantees a successful interception, so in order to make the plot work everyone involved has to choose to just let the missile hit.

It's a very strange movie in that not one single person at any point has any level of agency; they're all just blindly following protocol. But at the same time that protocol has been modified from what it is in real life in order to make sure that the missile hits, because the plot requires the missile to hit. The end result is that all of the characters are essentially collaborating to make sure that American soil gets nuked, and we're not even shown the writers' speculation on what the results of that might be. It's honestly baffling to me why anyone thought this was a movie worth making, I don't understand the reasoning at all.

>>65605056
>It's a very strange movie in that not one single person at any point has any level of agency; they're all just blindly following protocol.
It was made during the Biden administration. It's basically a microcosm of his presidency.

>>65605056
>>65604742
What really pissed me off is that one guy even straight up says something along the lines of "we might as well send all the interceptors, if this is the start of nuclear war we don't have enough anyway" and gets IGNORED. Like, the writers felt the need to call out their own retarded logic and then didn't bother to even make an excuse.

>>65605143
The whole movie was full of that kind of shit.
>Why only fire two interceptors for a ~80% interception chance instead of three for a >96% chance?
Because then we'd only have 47 interceptors available for the resulting full scale global thermonuclear war instead of 48, obviously.
>Why not launch an SM-3?
Because the USN existing would spoil the plot.
>Why retaliate with strategic nuclear weapons against what we're presuming is a rogue microstate when we have enough conventional weaponry to saturate the entire country five times over?
Because, well... you just HAVE to, okay?!? If the US doesn't break the nuclear taboo, then everyone else will nuke us because movie logic is the opposite of the real world!

>>65605094
>Random /pol/ whining.
Ukraine needs to step up taking out the rest of the russian data centers.

>>65604750
So why didn't they bother to rebuild Stonehenge, seems like a good way to deal with a swam of drones.

The ending was the most baffling
>yeah, we probably got nuked by the DPRK but we can't be sure
>shit man, better nuke everyone then, like right now.

>>65605257
>Ukraine needs to step up taking out the rest of the russian data centers.
They hit a new one last night.
Allegedly belonging to the tax department.

>>65605143
>>65605251
The whole plot was pants-on-head retarded. Multiple scenes with characters (from whom this stuff is their job) acting like it's their first day and they don't know where the coffee machine is

This movie felt like an attempt to make US BMD abilities far less effective than reality but I don't really understand who would be swayed by a dumb fucking movie because the only people interested in BMD anyways are going to be way more autistically educated on the matter. Absurd things like Navy not knowing exactly where the launch occurred and AEGIS Ticos and Burkes poofing out of existence was really odd.

What movie are you guys even talking about?

>>65606064
I'm guessing based on the context that it's that french one about a sub sonar operator trying to track down a soviet sub which was stolen by some band of thieves in order to prevent them firing its ICBMs.

>>65606064
>What movie are you guys even talking about?
I think it's XXX:5 which is about rogue nukes

>>65606064
A House of Dynamite
It's an odd movie that loops back on itself 3 times and shows a retardedly mismanaged rogue ICBM launch at an American city from 3 different perspectives, all of them increasingly more retarded and convoluted to make the plot work

>>65605278
So, I *think* the reason for that is that the writers were inspired by the book Nuclear War by Annie Jacobsen, which I haven't read but from what I understand describes an equally contrived situation, with the point being that it's entirely possible for the current system to fail into a state where everyone does what they should but it results in an apocalyptic outcome that benefits no one.

But then the writers of the movie, being hacks, didn't understand that the "inevitability" of an apocalyptic WW3 was specific to a scenario from a completely separate story that most of their audience hadn't read.

>>65606064
House of Dynamite.

>>65604718
GMD doesn't fire a single interceptor

GMD is easily capable of handling a single ICBM, the issues come when you introduce several ICBMs on different courses simultaneously. GMD has very limited number of interceptors available and so once you're dealing with more than a half dozen or dozen different ICBMs you're fucked.


GMD is primarily intended to protect against a single (or small handful of) ICBM(s) from Iran/N Korea, not an entire ICBM salvo from Russia/China.

>>65606127
That book also had its rights optioned for a different film coming out next year and the director of this one wanted to adapt it initially, so it's possible they also had to modify the scenario enough that the lawyers were comfortable with it while still conveying the parts they wanted to focus on.

>>65604597
Several presentations by expert Ted Postol where he explains why its so hard to intercept ICBM warheads or other hypersonic warheads. The actual intercept rate is like maybe 5% at best.

>>65605257
>So why didn't they bother to rebuild Stonehenge, seems like a good way to deal with a swam of drones.
Probably lack of political will and money, Stonehenge was made when everyone agreed that they had to do something and money were no object to the point they made SEVERAL anti asteroid defense systems to work alongside Stonehenge.
Between the fact that 1) that kind of unity didn't even last before the asteroid hit because Usea suffered a huge civil war just before it happened, and that the other two anti asteroid weapons (Fortress Intolerance and a spaceborne laser system) were coopted into superweapons in the Ace Combat 2 remake, meaning all three anti Ulysses measures were weaponized into superweapons that caused havoc for the continent (Except the laser one, that was sniped before it could be used)

Yeah I can see why they're gunshy about revisiting the concept.
Not to mention by the time drones were becoming an issue, the site had decayed so much from lack of usage (After being bombed to shit), and frying its one remaining gun after one shot, it would retake a COMPLETE, top to bottom, rebuild of the weapon system to restore its capacity.

>>65605257
>why didn’t they give those nigger useans ANOTHER superweapon
Probably the same reason we’ve not given nukes to the Congolese

>>65605257
>>Random /pol/ whining.
>Ukraine needs to step up taking out the rest of the russian data centers.
You can’t screech about /pol/ when you’re doing it yourself. Absolute hypocrite.

>>65606425
Yours was election tourist shit, the other is a tactical military target that is part of the biggest military happening war in /k/ history.
We are not same.

>>65605348
A good start.

>>65605257
>seems like a good way to deal with a swam of drones.
No?
The point of stonehenge's final shot was that it was a strong enough single hit that it could penetrate the carrier launching the drone swarm. The swarm itself wouldn't give a shit and subsequently hammer the henge to dust.

>>65606555
You're missing the key word
>Rebuild
Any carrier and drone swarm would be evaporated by a fully operation Stonehedge.
Hell, we don't know how badly the original jamming system the blocks all radar locks would mess with a drone's targeting system either given the only way to destroy it was manual aiming.

>>65606127
Jacobsen is a hack too. The issue being not that the system can't fail, obviously it can, nothing is perfect, but she chose to depict the one scenario where every single choice is actively retarded, every single communication fails, every single technology misbehaves, and whatever can go wrong does, just to let the norks have their nukes hit their targets. Again, it can happen, especially if the US keeps allowing that Russia-tier level of corruption and clientelism fester, with its corrosive effects trickling down through the command chain and society, but it makes for a bad scenario simply because it's so extreme and exaggerated. A shame because the first half builds tension well and is a very entertaining read.

>>65606736
Yeah, like I said I haven't read it, but my understanding is that it's trying to describe a series of events that's incredibly unlikely, but possible if absolutely everything that could go wrong were to go wrong. Whereas House of Dynamite is describing a situation that just wouldn't happen because it depends on everyone blindly following an imaginary protocol that would never exist in real life because it obviously would lead to the exact situation shown in the movie.

So Nuclear War is "what if everything goes wrong in our system designed to prevent WW3?" and House of Dynamite is "what if our system was instead designed to make sure WW3 happens?"

>>65606393
Ted Postol's work is frequency criticized for severe methodological flaws.

>>65607002
What methodology? He's just a boomer that screams "[thing] is hard so it must be impossible!" into the the void while everyone else watches that thing get done on a daily basis.

>>65607041
>The vatnik cries out in pain as they commit war crimes on civilians

>>65607002
so he'll be proven wrong the first time someone shoots an ICBM at the united states?

>>65607121
kys

>>65607366
Not today

>>65606064
The new Harry Potter

>>65605257
>why didn't they bother to rebuild Stonehenge
because Mobius-1 would just do it again for the love of the game

>>65607191
He's already been proven wrong. The US has successfully performed multiple exoatmospheric interceptions of Iranian ballistic missiles. Yes, that was with a different missile system (SM-3), but Postol's claims are not that GBMD specifically doesn't work, but that ballistic missile defense is fundamentally infeasible.

>>65609175
>ballistic missile defense is fundamentally infeasible.
so the US successfully defended Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and all the US bases from Iranian ballistic missiles? I mean if it works it works and there would be high percentages of intercepts and little if any damage caused by Iranian missiles.

>>65610204
Yes, the vast majority of Iranian ballistic missiles were intercepted. Most of the fairly limited damage Iran managed to do was with shasneeds, because for some reason the gulf states chose not to invest heavily into drone defenses despite seeing what Iranian drones were doing in Russia.

>>65610275
> for some reason
Because they’re retarded.