Comments by "Orbital_Inclination" (@Orbital_Inclination) on "Russia 'launches intercontinental ballistic missile attack' on Ukraine for first time" video.

  1. Why would it be? Russia has had ICBMs and other ballistic missile classes for decades, carried over from the Soviet days.
    7
  2. They didn't launch a nuke
    6
  3. ​ @saifskyline NATO hasn't been fighting Russia in direct confrontation, merely supplying equipment. That's nowhere close to the same thing as Russia going up against the combined NATO forces.
    5
  4. ​ @antique-bs8bb if it has no air defence, why has Russia been unable to gain control of the air?
    5
  5. Most ballistic missiles are hypersonic. Not the same thing as what is usually meant by 'hypersonic', which refers to recent hypersonic cruise missiles. These ballistic missiles don't have the same short kill window advantage of their cruise missile counterparts
    4
  6. The US would have known almost instantly what kind of missile was launched, thanks to their BMEWS system and space-based IR capability, so it will be interesting to see if they release any info.
    4
  7. It didn't fail, it's just not the magical super weapon you seem to be implying.
    3
  8. ​ @assassin3003 what does lgbtq have to do with anything? Does that just live rent free in your head?
    2
  9. ​ @antique-bs8bb you just claimed there was no air defence, and now you're saying Russia don't want to test it? At least stick to one narrative. Russia sure have lost a lot of aircraft against an enemy with no air defence...
    2
  10. Ballistic missiles are incredibly easy to detect due to their flight profile, and an interceptor doesn't need to chase the missile, it just needs to get in the way during descent.
    2
  11. And? It's been within reach for decades. Russia wouldn't risk a hor war with the West because it is struggling on one front, let alone fighting across its entire western border.
    2
  12. ​ @globalpower6967 hang on, are you saying that Russia has chosen to put its nukes on the NATO border? That's the kind of behaviour that Russia would be moaning about and threatening WW3 over, if the US did it to them.
    2
  13. ​ @JamesBond-bj7wc now try that again, but coherent this time
    2
  14. It's not impossible to intercept a ballistic missile, no matter how far it travels, because they can be tracked from the moment they launch, and interceptors don't have to catch up, they just have to get in the way.
    1
  15. Sure it will, 3 year old account. No way Putin would risk a full NATO response along the entire western border when he can't even convincingly win against Ukraine without having to resort to a war of attrition.
    1
  16. ​ @veshugnet despite Russian paranoia, NATO has never invaded Russia or made any threats to. Ex-Soviet states joined NATO after the awful treatment they received under the USSR, and the emerging threat of potential invasion (as seen in Georgia and Ukraine), so Russia trying to play the victim of 'NATO Expansion' is really weak. At the end of the day, NATO has never invaded Russia. Russia has invaded ex-Soviet states. I know which I'd rather be under the protective umbrella of.
    1
  17. Russia couldn't manage an all-out war with NATO. They can barely manage against Ukraine, hence resorting to a war of attrition.
    1
  18. Western media don't face the same kind of constant censorship as Russian media, so no need to shut their mouths over anything.
    1
  19. ​ @michaelzoelisch6738 because Ukraine's IADS isn't infallible, nothing ever is. Russian planners aren't stupid, they employ weapons in such a way to distract or overwhelm the few suitable SAM systems Ukraine has.
    1
  20. The missiles use GPS and INS, neither of which is particularly groundbreaking. Anyone with Google maps could input the relevant co-ordinates.
    1
  21. Ah yes, those famous NATO Russian intermediate ballistic missiles 😂
    1
  22. Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine is just fighting back.
    1
  23. For what? To appease a dictator by handing Putin exactly what he wants?
    1
  24. All it tells you is that they don't want US citizens getting killed by Russian missiles. Seems pretty sensible.
    1
  25. Pretty standard for ballistic missiles, which is why RAF Fylingdales is constantly scanning
    1
  26. ​ @nicholassimorangkir9093 they absolutely can detect and intercept a hypersonic ballistic warhead because it travels on a very predictable path, with a large part of the flight being so high that plasma inteference isn't an issue (and when that occurs, plasma throws off even more IR), which is easily calculated by the US BMEWS and space-based IR sensors, passed to the anti-missile batteries, and used to tell their fire control radars where to look.
    1
  27. ​ @michaelzoelisch6738 there is, anti missile systems can fairly easily calculate the trajectory of re-entry vehicles and intercept them from below.
    1
  28. ​ @eugenx9900 anti-ballistic missile capability is a thing that exists.
    1
  29. ​ @lymitutit3046 you think those systems only come online after a launch? At high readiness, they're constantly scanning or at least can react within a minute or so.
    1
  30. ​ @user-zi3tq3yu1u sure, 2 year old account, whatever you say...
    1
  31. Putin is the one escalating it. He invaded (twice), used ballistic missiles, fired long range weapons then moaned when Ukraine threatened to do the same.
    1
  32. ​ @Vladimir-ru9zm how, exactly? So Russia can invade more nations with no NATO military response? That's not just.
    1
  33. What are you trying to say, rather incoherently?
    1