Difference between revisions of "Talk:THAAD"
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
So after the talk about THAAD being useless against North Korea's missiles, it now proves to work fine? If I'm understanding correctly, the this should be updated here, since right now this says it "is ineffective against intermediate-range missiles of the kind that North Korea has been testing in late 2016 and early 2017." --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 23:52, 11 July 2017 (EDT) | So after the talk about THAAD being useless against North Korea's missiles, it now proves to work fine? If I'm understanding correctly, the this should be updated here, since right now this says it "is ineffective against intermediate-range missiles of the kind that North Korea has been testing in late 2016 and early 2017." --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 23:52, 11 July 2017 (EDT) | ||
:I updated the article to reflect more recent developments with THAAD, and I think I corrected the part about whether THAAD is useless, even though I would like someone else to double-check. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:03, 12 July 2017 (EDT) | :I updated the article to reflect more recent developments with THAAD, and I think I corrected the part about whether THAAD is useless, even though I would like someone else to double-check. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:03, 12 July 2017 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | "most expensive" =/= "most successful" or "most advanced". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 06:47, October 21, 2025 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Technically, if it made two kills in 2 firings, it could be considered among "the most successful"; however as my understanding is (a) it has never faced a peer competitor; (b) it exists in limited numbers and has been canceled due to costs. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 06:51, October 21, 2025 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Question: Can it defend against existing, operational [[MIRV]]s or [[MaRV]]s? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 06:58, October 21, 2025 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 10:58, October 21, 2025
Effective After All?
So after the talk about THAAD being useless against North Korea's missiles, it now proves to work fine? If I'm understanding correctly, the this should be updated here, since right now this says it "is ineffective against intermediate-range missiles of the kind that North Korea has been testing in late 2016 and early 2017." --David B (TALK) 23:52, 11 July 2017 (EDT)
- I updated the article to reflect more recent developments with THAAD, and I think I corrected the part about whether THAAD is useless, even though I would like someone else to double-check. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
"most expensive" =/= "most successful" or "most advanced". RobSZelensky Must Go! 06:47, October 21, 2025 (EDT)
Technically, if it made two kills in 2 firings, it could be considered among "the most successful"; however as my understanding is (a) it has never faced a peer competitor; (b) it exists in limited numbers and has been canceled due to costs. RobSZelensky Must Go! 06:51, October 21, 2025 (EDT)
Question: Can it defend against existing, operational MIRVs or MaRVs? RobSZelensky Must Go! 06:58, October 21, 2025 (EDT)