F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[Siberian]

Northern Canada? are we talking about conventional fight? NATO:Russia forces are 4,5:1 or something, or 6:1, and for sure Russia will not attack but will be in defence, so the fight will not be over the North pole or Canada, most probably in European theatre.
unless it's nuclear exchange.

and why is nuclear exchange impossible?
or, to be correct, if things go bad for Russia in European theatre it may start exterminating one NATO country after another with nuclear weapons. or to start with US bases overseas.

you can also use nukes afainst our bases abroad, if you find any

do you want me to believe that you will respond with nuclear weapons against proper Russian territory? with further full nuclear exchange..

You assume that the US will be the agressor. To date, the biggest aggressor in the Baltic Region has been Russia. And the US doesn't have to put one single combat boot on the ground. The Baltic Region knows how to fight.

Russia never invaded the US, US did invade Russia.

If Baltic region knows how to fight then I can sleep tight...

Back to the F-35. Sleep well that the US isn't going to fire the first shot. But remember, the first shots have already been fired by Russia and was met with extreme power where the Russians thought they were being attacked by a swarm of angry hornets. And then the lying and back pedaling of the Russian Government disclaiming the attack. And it hasn't happened again. One wonders what would have happened if that attack would have been successful and not been met with such force. Would Syria have become another Ukraine?

it's clear to everybody that the US is behind drone attacks on Russian troops in Syria, so you should pray yourself not to be attacked too by "unrecognized" drones, which you have no defence against, unlike Russians, which reppell them successfully.

 

[Siberian]

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

as Putin said - we don't need the World if there is no Russia in it.
it makes ANY war which can cause further disintegration or another USSR-style collapse of Russia equial to nuclear exchange, i. e. don't hope that you can rely on NATO's superiority in conventional weapons, Russia considers not the kind of weapons but kind of result as an excuse to use nukes.

So, if the US aims defeat of Russia on its territory you should understand that you aim nuclear exchange.

I presume it's common understsnding in Russia that we are not going to allow any war on our territory any more in future, and nuclear war in 3d countries, in some Ukraine, Poland etc, - why not, if you wish..

 

[Siberian]

And Vrenn, start your calculation of consequences of nuclear exchange with this

Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Russia is going to have more than 30 of such 100 megaton underwater drones.

Every of it will sweep off coasts for tens or hundreds kilometers deep into land territory, then cobalt fallout will make areas as deep as 1000 km uninhabitable for thousandsof years.
USSR dropped development of this weapon because it was too inhuman, but USA did not refuse to talk then, now it does.

 

[Siberian]

the picture in Status-6 page is not correct, direction of predominant winds is not taken into account, to contaminate half of US territory wirh radiation nukes must be blown in Mexucan gulf and on Pacific coast, a blast on Atlantic coast will destroy only coastal cities

 

[Silver Cat]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

 

[Silver Cat]

the picture in Status-6 page is not correct, direction of predominant winds is not taken into account, to contaminate half of US territory wirh radiation nukes must be blown in Mexucan gulf and on Pacific coast, a blast on Atlantic coast will destroy only coastal cities

How do they sing?

 

[Siberian]

the picture in Status-6 page is not correct, direction of predominant winds is not taken into account, to contaminate half of US territory wirh radiation nukes must be blown in Mexucan gulf and on Pacific coast, a blast on Atlantic coast will destroy only coastal cities

How do they sing?

is it supposed to mean something?
I start thinking that Russians (including Ukrainians, which are also Russians) outnumber Americans in this forum

 

[Siberian]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

 

[Dayton3]

And Vrenn, start your calculation of consequences of nuclear exchange with this

Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Russia is going to have more than 30 of such 100 megaton underwater drones.

Prove it.

 

[Vrenn]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

 

[Siberian]

And Vrenn, start your calculation of consequences of nuclear exchange with this

Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Russia is going to have more than 30 of such 100 megaton underwater drones.

Prove it.

prove what? read the link I attached.

 

[Siberian]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

 

[Vrenn]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying. It ends up being the first and last option. And both sides know it. NO NUKES will be used by either side. Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane. Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.

 

[Dayton3]

And Vrenn, start your calculation of consequences of nuclear exchange with this

Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Russia is going to have more than 30 of such 100 megaton underwater drones.

Prove it.

prove what? read the link I attached.

With a credible source. The Russians are constantly claiming they are "planning" to deploy something promoted as a superweapon. Yet they virtually never do.

 

[Silver Cat]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

That's what they name "uncontrolled escalation". And "preemptive strike" is, at least, five times better.

 

[Silver Cat]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying. It ends up being the first and last option. And both sides know it. NO NUKES will be used by either side. Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane. Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.

Just read Russian military doctrine, the part about definitions.

Военная доктрина Российской Федерации

Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации

www.kremlin.ru

---------------------
f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
---------------------------------
The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.

 

[Vrenn]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying. It ends up being the first and last option. And both sides know it. NO NUKES will be used by either side. Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane. Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.

Just read Russian military doctrine, the part about definitions.

Военная доктрина Российской Федерации

Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации

www.kremlin.ru

---------------------
f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
---------------------------------
The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.

No it doesn't. By your definition of "Regional War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country. And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.

 

[Silver Cat]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying. It ends up being the first and last option. And both sides know it. NO NUKES will be used by either side. Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane. Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.

Just read Russian military doctrine, the part about definitions.

Военная доктрина Российской Федерации

Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации

www.kremlin.ru

---------------------
f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
---------------------------------
The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.

No it doesn't. By your definition of "Regional War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country. And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.

By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.

 

[Vrenn]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying. It ends up being the first and last option. And both sides know it. NO NUKES will be used by either side. Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane. Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.

Just read Russian military doctrine, the part about definitions.

Военная доктрина Российской Федерации

Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации

www.kremlin.ru

---------------------
f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
---------------------------------
The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.

No it doesn't. By your definition of "Regional War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country. And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.

By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.

Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear? Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles. They know how to fight. But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting. And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35. But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.

Keep that in mind, Ivan.

And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads. You may not like the response.

 

[Siberian]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying. It ends up being the first and last option. And both sides know it. NO NUKES will be used by either side. Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane. Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.

Just read Russian military doctrine, the part about definitions.

Военная доктрина Российской Федерации

Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации

www.kremlin.ru

---------------------
f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
---------------------------------
The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.

No it doesn't. By your definition of "Regional War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country. And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.

By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.

Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear? Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles. They know how to fight. But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting. And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35. But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.

Keep that in mind, Ivan.

And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads. You may not like the response.

lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks

I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.

I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.