Russia simulate NUKING Europe with missiles hitting in 200 seconds and 'no survivors'

[Open Bolt]

MAD principle........that you keep clearly ignoring.

Um... no. Me repeatedly pointing it out does not count as ignoring it. Just the opposite in fact.

 

[eagle1462010]

Um... no. Me repeatedly pointing it out does not count as ignoring it. Just the opposite in fact.

I'm just pointing out that I think you are completely out of your mind.

 

[Open Bolt]

I'm just pointing out that I think you are completely out of your mind.

All I'm doing is pointing out reality. If Russia starts a nuclear war with NATO, Russia is going to die no matter how much you don't want it to be true.

 

[eagle1462010]

All I'm doing is pointing out reality. You may not like reality, but realty is still quite real.

If Russia starts a nuclear war with NATO, Russia is going to die no matter how much you don't like it.

Of course but early on you were saying Nuclear War is winnable............I think you need to stop taking so much of your product.

 

[Open Bolt]

Of course but early on you were saying Nuclear War is winnable............I think you need to stop taking so much of your product.

Let's see a cite of me saying that.

 

[eagle1462010]

Let's see a cite of me saying that.

I remember you saying that earlier.............Let me look a bit.

 

[eagle1462010]

No such thing as an innocent Russian. Nuke them all.

I believe that our nukes are capable of eradicating Russia from the face of the planet.

I don't care if someone calls that winning, or not.

Russia doesn't have to listen. All they have to do is scream and die when we launch our nukes at them.

Nut bag

 

[Open Bolt]

Nut bag

You said MAD was real too. That makes you just as much of a nutbag as it makes me.

I take it you didn't find any quotes of me saying that nuclear war is winnable?

 

[eagle1462010]

You said MAD was real too. That makes you just as much of a nutbag as it makes me.

I take it you didn't find any quotes of me saying that nuclear war is winnable?

You have been lets nuke them all over the thread MOONBAT.

 

[Open Bolt]

You have been lets nuke them all over the thread

And rightly so. That's what MAD is all about: nuking the other side into extinction.

MOONBAT.

You may not like MAD, but it is real whether you like it or not.

 

[Silver Cat]

This won't help with an immediate war, but we are developing a new generation of stealth cruise missile for our stealth bombers to carry.

Air Force awards contract for new long-range missile system

Air Force awarded Engineering and Manufacturing Development contract for its Long Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon to Raytheon Missiles and Defense on July 1, 2021.

www.afnwc.af.mil

In the future our stealth bombers will not have to get close to a target in order to nuke it. And if an airbase still poses a threat to our stealth bombers even with them staying distant from targets, that airbase itself can be targeted with these new stealth cruise missiles.

The number of missiles that we will build has not yet been decided, but we made 1750 ALCM nuclear warheads during the Cold War, so we can easily make as many as 1750 of these new missiles.

We also are making a sub-launched version for our attack submarines to carry. We made 367 SLCM nuclear warheads during the Cold War, so we can easily make 367 nuclear SLCMs.

It's nice, but it's not enough, even not close to be enough. What is even more important - to build something in the far future, we must avoid a large-scale war in the close one. And this means that the Americans shouldn't be hostages of the stupid and aggressive European politicians, both in the terms of safety and economy. And it means, that there is no place for any "automatic reactions" in our deterrence (or, wider, foreign policy).

Also, strategic uncertainty must stimulate our allies invest more in their own defense and do not write checks which they can't cash.

 

[Silver Cat]

And rightly so. That's what MAD is all about: nuking the other side into extinction.



You may not like MAD, but it is real whether you like it or not.

No. Nuking other side into extinction isn't real. MAD is more about "unacceptable damage" rather than about "extinction". But under some circumstances "victory in a limited nuclear war" may be more acceptable than "defeat in the unlimited conventional war".

 

[Silver Cat]

All I'm doing is pointing out reality. If Russia starts a nuclear war with NATO, Russia is going to die no matter how much you don't want it to be true.

First - Russia won't die (or, at least, more than 50% of Russians will survive).
Second - do you really want to see America devastated as result of British or German stupidity and incompetence?

 

[Open Bolt]

It's nice, but it's not enough, even not close to be enough.

Enough for what? The new stealth cruise missiles will do everything that we intend for them to do.

They will allow our stealth bombers to pick off targets without having to approach them.

They will allow our stealth bombers punch holes in extremely powerful air defenses.

What is even more important - to build something in the far future, we must avoid a large-scale war in the close one. And this means that the Americans shouldn't be hostages of the stupid and aggressive European politicians, both in the terms of safety and economy. And it means, that there is no place for any "automatic reactions" in our deterrence (or, wider, foreign policy).
Also, strategic uncertainty must stimulate our allies invest more in their own defense and do not write checks which they can't cash.

Our allies are not responsible for Russia's aggression against them, and we will defend our NATO allies from that Russian aggression.

No. Nuking other side into extinction isn't real. MAD is more about "unacceptable damage" rather than about "extinction".

The fallout, the destruction of the ozone layer, and the nuclear winter will take care of the survivors.

But under some circumstances "victory in a limited nuclear war" may be more acceptable than "defeat in the unlimited conventional war".

If you speak of an American victory, sure. American victories are fine.

If you speak of a Russian victory, then no. We will not allow Russia any victory in a war against NATO. We will destroy them instead.

First - Russia won't die (or, at least, more than 50% of Russians will survive).

We will destroy Russia's 300 largest cities. The fallout, nuclear winter, and destruction of the ozone layer will take care of the survivors.

Second - do you really want to see America devastated as result of British or German stupidity and incompetence?

Brittan and Germany are not in any way responsible for Russian aggression.

 

[alexa]

It's nice, but it's not enough, even not close to be enough. What is even more important - to build something in the far future, we must avoid a large-scale war in the close one.

What silver cat do you want to build in the far future that you are wanting a limited nuclear war for now.

And this means that the Americans shouldn't be hostages of the stupid and aggressive European politicians, both in the terms of safety and economy.

OK let's see which European countries you believe have been so stupid and aggressive they deserve to be nuked and their people killed. Please say what they had to do with the war with Ukraine and where the US were not involved

And it means, that there is no place for any "automatic reactions" in our deterrence (or, wider, foreign policy).

Also, strategic uncertainty must stimulate our allies invest more in their own defense and do not write checks which they can't cash.

The only reason for all this would appear to be that you now support nuclear war as long as it does not immediately kill you and yours though Open Bolt has made clear how that would only be temporary and I would add that the time you have left having betrayed those who fought to support you will be tortuous. Putin has spoken of a limited nuclear war and Trump was interested in one but Biden is in office now so if Russia is banking on Russia destroying the UK and Ireland as it keeps saying it will...and getting away with it, well Putin should know that US, French and UK nuclear submarines are all at Clyde now.

 

[alexa]

Nuclear War turning you on? It is time people started remembering the consequences of this

This implies that some humans would survive, eventually to repopulate the planet, and that a species-level extinction of Homo sapiens is unlikely even after a full-scale nuclear war. But the vast majority of the human population would suffer extremely unpleasant deaths from burns, radiation and starvation, and human civilization would likely collapse entirely. Survivors would eke out a living on a devastated, barren planet.

It was this shared understanding of the consequences of nuclear Armageddon that led to the 1985 statement by then US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” This statement was reaffirmed by Presidents Biden and Putin as recently as January 2022. Even as war rages in Ukraine it remains as true now as it was then.

With children’s hospitals bombed and refugees shelled as they flee, emotions run high. But cool heads must ultimately prevail, so that we can collectively step back from the brink of Russia-NATO confrontation before it is too late. The price of nuclear escalation is planetary suicide, with no winners at all. That won’t save lives in Ukraine — it will simply take the death toll of the current war from the thousands to the billions.[/quote]

What the science says: Could humans survive a nuclear war between NATO and Russia? - Alliance for Science

Russian leader Vladimir Putin has suggested that he would consider using nuclear weapons if confronted with a NATO military response in Ukraine, or if faced with a direct threat to his person or regime. If the war spreads to a NATO country like Estonia or Poland a direct US-Russia confrontation...

allianceforscience.cornell.edu

I would agree and always have that it would be sensible to give Putin a get out of jail free card where he can move out of this and his people still believe he has won what he intended. There has been no sign from our Leaders of moving in that direction but I really think some white lies in that direction is better than someone's ego and apparent lack of knowledge of nuclear war, allowing them to start one rather than be seen to lose a conventional one.

 

[Open Bolt]

It won't be 1500 deployed. Before launching nukes, we would upload all our hedge warheads onto our ICBMs, upload all our hedge bombs and cruise missiles onto our bombers and then get them in the air, and upload hedge warheads onto any submarine that was in port or near port and then get them out into the ocean.

So, you lost time and the Russians have their cities evacuated, population sheltered and, may be, they will attack your military targets first.

I already replied, but I had a further thought. If Russia nuked a NATO country that had not nuked them first, and they then followed up by launching a major nuclear attack against the US without us having nuked them first, we would show them very little in the way of mercy.

Maybe we wouldn't have shown mercy regardless. But I can't think of a more reliable way for Russia to ensure that the US completely exterminates them.

 

[Silver Cat]

I already replied, but I had a further thought. If Russia nuked a NATO country that had not nuked them first, and they then followed up by launching a major nuclear attack against the US without us having nuked them first, we would show them very little in the way of mercy.

Maybe we wouldn't have shown mercy regardless. But I can't think of a more reliable way for Russia to ensure that the US completely exterminates them.

1. If Russia nuked a few military targets in the UK and/or France - the USA obviously won't commit murder-suicide and launch a couner-value strike against Russia. The USA will try to find a diplomatic solution which will be pretty close to 'acception of local defeat' at least because the USA don't have enough tactical nukes to fight and win a nuclear war in Europe.
2. Talking about massive counter-force strikes.
2.a. There are some possible circumstances under which the Russians can launch a successful counter-force strike , which will decrease retaliation capabilities of the USA to 'definitely acceptable level'.
2.b There are almost no possible circumstances under which the USA can launch a successful counter-force strike, which will decrease retaliation capabilities of Russia to 'definitely acceptable level'.
3. Talking about counter-value strikes and recuperation capabilities.
3.a. Russia is big (and resource rich), cold (which means their houses have thick walls), their EMERCOM is effective (and have an experience of city evacuations) , they have significant state reserves of material resources (including food, fuel, metals and so on), what is even more important - they have plenty of naturally rich and military weak neighbors (including China, India and EU).
3.b. The USA are smaller than Russia, have denser population, FEMA is ineffective, state reserves don't deserve a mention, significant part of the population can't do anything useful and closest neighbours are already poor.
4. Talking about the stakes.
4.a. The European war is, literally, a question of life and death for the Russians.
4.b. The European war is a question of political profit for some corrupted American politicians only. The USA can survive without Europe.

 

[Toro]

There will be no nuclear war.

If there is, it means the end of Russia and triumph of the West.

Russian leadership is stupid but not that stupid.

 

[Silver Cat]

There will be no nuclear war.

If there is, it means the end of Russia and triumph of the West.

Russian leadership is stupid but not that stupid.

We'll see.