Resolves as YES if Ukraine successfully hits a Russian target located between 3,000 km and 5,500 km away from the nearest point on the front line.
@MalachiteEagle The funding is for long-range drones, not ballistic missiles, but it will allow Ukraine to allocate more resources to its missile program.
@MalachiteEagle Nobody can reliably intercept ballistic missiles, though the US and Israel have air defense systems that manage to intercept them most of the time. In contrast, most Russian air defense systems are designed to bring an interceptor close to the missile and then detonate a high-fragmentation warhead to destroy drones and cruise missiles. However, getting an interceptor near a ballistic missile is much harder because they travel at much higher speeds. The problem is that even if the high-fragmentation warhead damages the ballistic missile, it may not prevent the missile from reaching its target, as the missile would still retain significant kinetic energy. To effectively stop a ballistic missile, you need to strike it directly with something heavy enough to destroy it, which Russia is unlikely to achieve for several years, if not decades. If Ukraine develops accurate intermediate-range ballistic missiles, they may be able to target and destroy any Russian site they choose.
@MalachiteEagle I just realized you probably meant the long-range drones. Russia can intercept those, but they can't afford to. Their territory is much larger than Ukraine's, making it harder for the Russians to disable them with electronic warfare or shoot them down with cheap anti-air cannons or drones, as the Ukrainians have started doing. The Russians could use long-distance interceptors, but those would be depleted very quickly
@ChaosIsALadder yeah meant the drones. I would have expected at this point for militaries to have come up with a cost effective countermeasure, but for sure that front line is very long