| > I found it interesting that not even this article thinks about it that the US mainland ever can be attacked It can be, but it would be very, very difficult for anything short of lobbing ICBMs around. You'd have to have a fleet of ships that would be detected as soon as they set sail, and then protect that fleet for the entire voyage, which would also be extremely difficult for any adversary. Getting boots on US soil would be even tougher. Drones are an option, but cross-ocean ones are not an easy problem to solve. |
| |
| ▲ | contubernio 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It could be attacked easily via an alliance with Mexico or Canada. The premise that such a thing could never happen is not a good one for military planning. | | | |
| ▲ | AlexCoventry a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | According to Zelensky, there will be drones capable of traversing tens of thousands of kilometers within a couple of years. The US mainland is definitely at risk of drone attack in the near-medium term, IMO. > One, two, three years — drones will strike ten, twenty thousand kilometers. With reactive engines, they will be very cheap -- Zelensky https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/2042105223989035429 | | |
| ▲ | siriusastrebe a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I did some digging, reaction engines are jet engines that can transition into a rocket propelled mode. It could enable a single stage to orbit plane. Within the atmosphere the jet engine will burn atmospheric oxygen which would theoretically reduce the amount of fuel needed to reach a certain delta-V. Once outside of the atmosphere the engine switches to a rocket propelled mode, usually by injecting stored oxygen into the engine in addition to jet fuel. So far there hasn't been a working prototype of a reaction engine. A British company SABRE closed down due to lack of funding but it did prove several pieces of the reactive engine design could work independently. | | |
| ▲ | eszed 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | I have a friend whose dad finished his engineering career at SABRE (he retired some years before it shut down). According to him, the original concept wasn't far-fetched, but that they didn't crack some manufacturing / materials issues. He thought they should have continued to work on those, instead of redesigning to avoid them. He had retired by the time we spoke about it, and I don't know the particular model / design to which he was referring. If that's accurate, then possibly materials technology / manufacturing techniques have matured to the point that the "simpler" design he preferred could be feasible. That's all second-hand speculation, so take it with a dose of salt, but a short timeline might be reasonable. |
| |
| ▲ | lostlogin a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The idea that attacks on the US come from afar is an assumption too. It doesn’t seem impossible that some radical group of attacks the US from within. And that’s quite apart from the US threats to attack its neighbours. | |
| ▲ | margalabargala a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | North Korea and Iran both have orbital launch vehicles. If you can put something in orbit, that's most of the way to putting something in Times Square or DC. This hasn't happened yet. And much easier, more deniable attacks like car bombings of these places also hasn't happened to any real degree. The mass shootings in the US are mostly performed by Americans, usually right-wing Americans, and the percentage performed by foreigners is close to zero. Looking forward to some right wing American replying linking to individual examples of foreigners doing mass shootings as though that disproves the point. | |
| ▲ | mrguyorama a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | A drone capable of traveling tens of thousands of kilometers to its target is called a cruise missile. They are not cheap. What "reactive engine" is Zelensky talking about? | | |
| ▲ | ambicapter 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's probably just a mistranslation, in some languages jet engines are called "reaction engines". |
|
| |
| ▲ | kylehotchkiss a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | For better and for worse our country is armed to the teeth with civilians who would take great offense to a foreign military invasion | |
| ▲ | protocolture 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Getting boots on US soil would be even tougher. Getting them there seems easy, its the keeping them there that seems like a logistical nightmare. >You'd have to have a fleet of ships that would be detected as soon as they set sail, and then protect that fleet for the entire voyage, which would also be extremely difficult for any adversary. Or make friends with one of your neighbors that the USA appears to be keen on pissing off constantly. I have never seen more negative sentiment about the USA from Canadians before, who now see the USA as a strategic threat instead of their mentally challenged neighbor. And dont get me started on Mexico, they can probably be had for pennies. |
|
