Biden ok’d Ukrainian missile strikes into Russia with our long range missiles.

[Delldude]

I got it. Somebody destroyed Russian Nord Stream pipes. And then - somebody destroyed some NATO undersea cables. May be, it's just a coincidence. May be, it were "Ukrainian terrorists" in both cases. But it's quite possible that NATO destroyed Russian pipes and Russia destroyed NATO's cables as a part of retaliation.

The Uke's did the pipeline................cat been outa the bag.

 

[Zavulon]

I think you are wrong. NATO is the target.

We'll see.

 

[Delldude]

We'll see.

What would be a closer targeting opportunity?
You think Ivan would pop one over the Arctic rather than go short range in his own backyard?
You go after Alaska....................all bets are off.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

$182,990,000,000.That’s how much money Biden & the U.S. Congress have sent to Ukraine since 2022.
That money could have solved homelessness in our own country and rebuilt our crumbling infrastructure.
NO MORE MONEY FOR WARS ABROAD WHILE OUR OWN COUNTRY IS IN DECAY.

The US has spent 20 trillion dollars on the "war on poverty" Government can't fix shit.

 

[Zavulon]

What would be a closer targeting opportunity?
You think Ivan would pop one over the Arctic rather than go short range in his own backyard?

Poland is much easier target, but American military base is much more logical. If there was an American attack against Russian target, the justful answer is Russian attack against an American base. Like, say, launch a salvo of hypersonic (or stealth) missiles.

You go after Alaska....................all bets are off.

It's not about attempt of annexation of Alaska. It will be just more or less the same long-range weapon attack (likely, not even nuclear at the first time). Like a message. "You attack our bases in Russia - we attack your bases in America." It's that simple and I hope it simple enough.

 

[eagle1462010]

With MERVS. Guarantees MAD. All we need is 1 boomer. All they need is 1 Typhone.

Let that sink in.

 

[Zavulon]

With MERVS. Guarantees MAD. All we need is 1 boomer. All they need is 1 Typhone.

Let that sink in.

No MAD. Even with MIRVs one boomer is just 20 missiles with, say, 3 100kt W76-1 warheads each = 60 warheads. Highly likely, Moscow's ABD will intercept them all.

 

[eagle1462010]

No MAD. Even with MIRVs one boomer is just 20 missiles with, say, 3 100kt W76-1 warheads each = 60 warheads. Highly likely, Moscow's ABD will intercept them all.

More like 90 per boomer

 

[ShahdagMountains]

What has he done?

Sweden and Finland have all begun warning their residents to prepare for the possibility of war as Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine rages on.​

Stockholm on Monday published its latest version of “In Case of Crisis or War,” a pamphlet instructing civilians on how to prepare for, and ride out, a national crisis that was last sent out in 2018.​

The pamphlet, which has been issued five times since World War II, is now twice as long at 32 pages and focuses on war preparations as the Swedish government warns of the worsening situation in Ukraine.​

https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/united-states/sweden-finland-warn-residents-to-be-ready-for-war-situation-is-serious/news-story/d9dc7b94cd299494dc9b77d167e14406

 

[Zavulon]

More like 90 per boomer

90 per boomer = 4,5 per missile, which means decreased range and anti-ABD capabilities. The boomers with higher payload have lesser chances to survive Russian first attack and has lesser capabilities to penetrate even weaker ABD.

 

[Zavulon]

With MERVS. Guarantees MAD. All we need is 1 boomer. All they need is 1 Typhone.

Let that sink in.

Or, as also possible, USA can accept Russian peaceful proposals and survive suffering only moderate civilian losses (may be even lesser than 5 mln killed) .

 

[eagle1462010]

Or, as also possible, USA can accept Russian peaceful proposals and survive suffering only moderate civilian losses (may be even lesser than 5 mln killed) .


View attachment 1043716
View attachment 1043717
View attachment 1043718
View attachment 1043719

You fire nukes both sides DIE period. We have enough to destroy the world many times over.

Why it is called MAD to even try.

 

[Zavulon]

You fire nukes both sides DIE period. We have enough to destroy the world many times over.

Why it is called MAD to even try.

No. If we launch nukes to destroy your nukes and then you surrender - we'll both will live (but you will suffer significant but acceptable damage). If we launch nukes to destroy your nukes, and then you try to retaliate with your crippled nuclear forces - we'll suffer significant but acceptable damage, and then we'll nuke you - and you'll die (but we'll survive).

 

[eagle1462010]

No. If we launch nukes to destroy your nukes and then you surrender - we'll both will live (but you will suffer significant but acceptable damage). If we launch nukes to destroy your nukes, and then you try to retaliate with your crippled nuclear forces - we'll suffer significant but acceptable damage, and then we'll nuke you - and you'll die (but we'll survive).

BS. Anyone who thinks you can win a nuclear war is an idiot.

 

[Zavulon]

BS. Anyone who thinks you can win a nuclear war is an idiot.

It depends on your definition of the terms "win" and "idiot". All sober people are considering nukes as just another type of weapons. There is nothing diabolical in them. And, if you shoot fast and shoot accurate - your enemy is dead, and you are alive.

 

[eagle1462010]

It depends on your definition of the terms "win" and "idiot". All sober people are considering nukes as just another type of weapons. There is nothing diabolical in them. And, if you shoot fast and shoot accurate - your enemy is dead, and you are alive.

You are an idiot thinking you can survive the exchange. Idiot....means ....dumb....stupid....ignorent...etc.

There are no winners. Only losers

 

[Zavulon]

You are an idiot thinking you can survive the exchange. Idiot....means ....dumb....stupid....ignorent...etc.

Of course there will be a lot of people who will survive your crippled and weakened retaliation strike. Actually, if your survived nuclear forces are, say, one boomer with 90 warheads, all of them will be intercepted by Moscow's ABD in optimistic scenario and only ten of them will hit Moscow in the most pessimistic scenario. Ten 100 kt warheads in Moscow, when half of the population is already evacuated and another half had 30 minutes alarm and mostly sheltered... Ok, say it will be some 0,1 mln killed civilians. Bad, but definitely far from the total annihilation.

There are no winners. Only losers

If Russia lost 0,1 mln civilians in Moscow (and the whole city is more or less destroyed), but Russia in the post-war world is a mighty independent state and the USA lost all their major cities, 50 mln killed immediately and then 300 mln left the country as refugees and the whole territory of the former USA is a zone of humanitarian occupation of other states, it means that Russia won (while the victory was costly) and the USA lost.

 

[AlexanderPK]

There are no winners. Only losers

What's the ratio of the ones who think that way, say, among your friends? I thought the West has lost fear of the MAD lately. It's been telling itself the story of its grandeur and Russia's weakness for so long that even chihuahuas like Poland or Baltic semi-states believe they can pee against the wind and stay dry.

 

[westwall]

It depends on your definition of the terms "win" and "idiot". All sober people are considering nukes as just another type of weapons. There is nothing diabolical in them. And, if you shoot fast and shoot accurate - your enemy is dead, and you are alive.

The only nation that can "win" a nuke war is China. Post apocalypse they will still have around 200,000,000 people. That effectively makes them the only nation to survive.

All others are toast.

 

[Zavulon]

The only nation that can "win" a nuke war is China. Post apocalypse they will still have around 200,000,000 people. That effectively makes them the only nation to survive.

All others are toast.

How so? Nuclear war is not an "apocalypse" in any sober meaning. Let's play the game.
1. Russian sucessful first "counter-force" strike. Most of US nukes are destroyed. 1 mln American civilians killed. Russian generous offer of mutually-acceptable peace is rejected.
2. American "counter-value" retaliation strike. 1 mln of Russian civilians are killed.
3. Russian "finishing" countervalue strike - 50 mln American civilians killed, infrastructure, including NPPs, destroyed. The USA doesn't exist anymore as a political or military power.
Somebody of survived Americans sign unconditional surrender.
4. BRICS and Shanghai block countries send "humanitarian occupation forces" on the territory of the former USA and gather trophies.

Where do you see any type of "Apocalypse" here?