F-35s jets and S-400 missiles

[Silver Cat]

Do you think, that those little whores can be our friends?

Poll: In a Russia-US conflict, Europeans favor neutrality over America

Unless the Russians are right next door and then that graph changes fast.

In what direction? They may join Russia as well.

Ask Ukraine if they want to join Russia. How about Georgia? Or Poland or any of the other STans. I think one or two might but the rest are scared to death of a Russian Invasion. It's a pretty given fact that once you allow Russian troops into your country, you are now a Russian State and there is nothing you get to say about it after that. NATO is much more positive than Russia is and it's more trusted. And it's the only thing that stands in the way of Russia going any further than it's already gone. The lines have been drawn.

Sometimes, the Russians can give the very convincing arguments, you know. So, what if we leave Europeans to their own? What if we'll be too busy with China? Will Europeans be a part of "Eurasian problem", or a part of its solution? Can they independently distract Russia from the Pacific war theatre and buy us some time to win the war against China or they prefer to make business, not war? Can they sacrifice themselves for the greater goal or they are too weak and selfish for this?

There will be NO war between the US and China or Russia. It's something that just can't happen. The only war that can happen between any combination of those 3 would be nuclear. And after one looks at the population and industrial makeup of all 3, while there would be no winners, the biggest losers would be Russian and China. Again, there will be NO war in any combination between China, Russia nor the US.

Does it mean, that you really believe, that:
1) Russia will never attack Turks, Baltic states or any other NATO members;
2) If Russia will attack them, the USA will not attack Russia?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Unless the Russians are right next door and then that graph changes fast.

In what direction? They may join Russia as well.

Ask Ukraine if they want to join Russia. How about Georgia? Or Poland or any of the other STans. I think one or two might but the rest are scared to death of a Russian Invasion. It's a pretty given fact that once you allow Russian troops into your country, you are now a Russian State and there is nothing you get to say about it after that. NATO is much more positive than Russia is and it's more trusted. And it's the only thing that stands in the way of Russia going any further than it's already gone. The lines have been drawn.

Sometimes, the Russians can give the very convincing arguments, you know. So, what if we leave Europeans to their own? What if we'll be too busy with China? Will Europeans be a part of "Eurasian problem", or a part of its solution? Can they independently distract Russia from the Pacific war theatre and buy us some time to win the war against China or they prefer to make business, not war? Can they sacrifice themselves for the greater goal or they are too weak and selfish for this?

There will be NO war between the US and China or Russia. It's something that just can't happen. The only war that can happen between any combination of those 3 would be nuclear. And after one looks at the population and industrial makeup of all 3, while there would be no winners, the biggest losers would be Russian and China. Again, there will be NO war in any combination between China, Russia nor the US.

Does it mean, that you really believe, that:
1) Russia will never attack Turks, Baltic states or any other NATO members;
2) If Russia will attack them, the USA will not attack Russia?

The US has already sunk billions of equipment in so that they can defend themselves. And you will find that where ever there are US Troops, Russian doesn't attack. We have troops in many of the Baltic States now. That prevents an attack. And Turkey can defend itself pretty well with all the billions the US and Nato have sunk into that country. If Turkey feels that an attack is imminent, I am sure they are going to invite US Troops inside their borders.

And it will be the US Troops defending themselves in contained battles that won't escalate into a full blown war. Russia already felt the sting of the US in a heads up battle already. 300 dead Russians with Zero losses on the US side. And a lot of back pedaling by Russia trying to disavow that attack.

 

[Silver Cat]

Do you think, that those little whores can be our friends?

Hah hah this explains a lot, someone is emotionally invested here.

Bla-bla-bla... Most of this stuff will be destroyed at bases by nuclear Iscanders, Calibers and other missiles in the first hours of the conflict.

Ahhh so now you are attempting to prove an S-400 cannot be defeated by European aircraft by simply adding to the scenario a nuclear conflict that removes all their aircraft from the scenario. In other words, you know you were full of shit, can't talk your way out of it, so are adding nukes.

No. Nukes is an important part of the most of my scenarios. Modern war is a nuclear war. And I don't say, that the Russian will destroy "all their aircraft". They hardly have more than few hundreds of tactical nukes in Kolosovka.

The first one to start throwing Nukes pisses off everyone else and that's not a scenario you nor anyone else wants to see.

Sure there are many scenarios of full-scale nuclear exchanges. And what "everyone else" can do about it?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Do you think, that those little whores can be our friends?

Hah hah this explains a lot, someone is emotionally invested here.

Bla-bla-bla... Most of this stuff will be destroyed at bases by nuclear Iscanders, Calibers and other missiles in the first hours of the conflict.

Ahhh so now you are attempting to prove an S-400 cannot be defeated by European aircraft by simply adding to the scenario a nuclear conflict that removes all their aircraft from the scenario. In other words, you know you were full of shit, can't talk your way out of it, so are adding nukes.

No. Nukes is an important part of the most of my scenarios. Modern war is a nuclear war. And I don't say, that the Russian will destroy "all their aircraft". They hardly have more than few hundreds of tactical nukes in Kolosovka.

The first one to start throwing Nukes pisses off everyone else and that's not a scenario you nor anyone else wants to see.

Sure there are many scenarios of full-scale nuclear exchanges. And what "everyone else" can do about it?

And not one has anyone winning anything. Pretty much, the only Government that would survive would be what's left of the America's Government. China and Russia wouldn't have a government at all. And neither would most of the countries in the world outside of some out of the way 3rd world countries. And how long they would last is questionable. Russia and China will lose almost their entire Industrial Complex and over 95% of their population in the short and long term. The US will lose about 85%.

All of a sudden, Arizona becomes cooler, rains more and becomes the new grain belt. In Russia, they completely lose their entire bread basket. It will take the US at least a decade, maybe 2 decades to dig it's way out but Russia and China will be closer to 100 years. Russia and China will know how to make the wheel they just won't have the industry to actually make them.

NOBODY want's MAD to be done. And if it's done, although the US will fare slightly better, if a nuclear bomb goes off, I want to be at the direct center of it because it would be more humane. If you can't see that then you are a fool.

 

[Silver Cat]

The US has already sunk billions of equipment in so that they can defend themselves. And you will find that where ever there are US Troops, Russian doesn't attack.

Do you remember Korean War, Vietnam War?

We have troops in many of the Baltic States now. That prevents an attack.

And what if not? What, if the Russians will attack anyway and kill all our soldiers in Lithuania? Should we escalate or de-escalate the conflict?

And it will be the US Troops defending themselves in contained battles that won't escalate into a full blown war. Russia already felt the sting of the US in a heads up battle already. 300 dead Russians with Zero losses on the US side. And a lot of back pedaling by Russia trying to disavow that attack.

And what if next time our soldiers will be killed? Should we try to disavow this conflict or escalate it?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The US has already sunk billions of equipment in so that they can defend themselves. And you will find that where ever there are US Troops, Russian doesn't attack.

Do you remember Korean War, Vietnam War?

We have troops in many of the Baltic States now. That prevents an attack.

And what if not? What, if the Russians will attack anyway and kill all our soldiers in Lithuania? Should we escalate or de-escalate the conflict?

And it will be the US Troops defending themselves in contained battles that won't escalate into a full blown war. Russia already felt the sting of the US in a heads up battle already. 300 dead Russians with Zero losses on the US side. And a lot of back pedaling by Russia trying to disavow that attack.

And what if next time our soldiers will be killed? Should we try to disavow this conflict or escalate it?

If it happens, it's going to be a mistake and Russia is going to backpedal hard. The last thing they want is a limited war with the US with US Casualties. The US won't just pull out, the US will ship in more and more. If you knew anything about the Russian Training for their conscripts you would know that they should hardly be considered a professional Military. Don't take the Spec Ops you see of the Russians and think that's what the rest of them are like. Meanwhile, the US Troops are all Professionals. This is what was demonstrated in Syria already when the Russians attack the US positions. 300 dead Russians with zero American losses. Russia was met by a buzzsaw.

 

[Silver Cat]

And not one has anyone winning anything.

Nucleophobia detected. Highly depends on your definition of the term "victory".

Pretty much, the only Government that would survive would be what's left of the America's Government. China and Russia wouldn't have a government at all.

It depends.

And neither would most of the countries in the world outside of some out of the way 3rd world countries. And how long they would last is questionable.

There are more than 2 million cities and towns in the world and a bit more than 3 thousands of strategic nuclear warheads. One warhead for 666 targets. Certainly, it is not "end of civilisation".

Russia and China will lose almost their entire Industrial Complex and over 95% of their population in the short and long term. The US will lose about 85%.

From where did you get this percents? Even "Mad Butcher" scenario gives near 30% losses.

All of a sudden, Arizona becomes cooler, rains more and becomes the new grain belt. In Russia, they completely lose their entire bread basket.

Ha! Their "bread basket" is Ukraine and Middle Asia.

It will take the US at least a decade, maybe 2 decades to dig it's way out but Russia and China will be closer to 100 years. Russia and China will know how to make the wheel they just won't have the industry to actually make them.

Really? What about Europe or India?

NOBODY want's MAD to be done. And if it's done, although the US will fare slightly better, if a nuclear bomb goes off, I want to be at the direct center of it because it would be more humane. If you can't see that then you are a fool.

If you can "see" it, you are a hallucinating environmentalist like a Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg.

 

[DrainBamage]

No. Iranian or even Syrian forces are not protected by the Russian IADS. Russia is neutral in Syria-Israel conflict.

Russian equipment, ditzo.

 

[DrainBamage]

No. It is you, who were naive. You saw a picture with JDAMs, you saw a video with blastes, and you decided, that the isle was bombed with JDAMs.

Actually there are articles that describe the weapons as JDAMs and showed pictures of them loading said JDAMs onto aircraft for the mission you showed in your video. You're acting like a child trying to latch on to this ridiculous notion that they had F-35s dropping unguided bombs because it's horribly embarrassing that you actually believed. You should just tattoo "I don't know what I'm talking about" on your forehead.

May be, I could show you more documents, if I was sure, that you curiousity is legal. But right now I'm certain it is not.

Ahh so you could have shown documents on UAI but instead decided to post something else entirely? You're a joke.

No. I just said, that I know better.

Says they moron who believed JDAMs were dumb bombs, and that of all the aircraft that are capable of dropping dumb bombs they decided to chickenwire F-35s to do so. Bad combination = naive + stubborn

 

[DrainBamage]

No. Nukes is an important part of the most of my scenarios.

Well at least they became that way after you couldn't bluff your way into making a convincing argument.

You: NATO could not defeat might S-400!
SanePeople: Sure they could, with all these aircraft and weapons
You: No those weapons were already nuked

Cop-out much?

Modern war is a nuclear war. .

Except for the past 75 years that have proven you wrong.

 

[DrainBamage]

Once again, since Silver Cat is still in denial, about the bombing of Qanus Island:

Official pictures that accompanied the press release did show F-35As and F-15Es, both of which are presently forward deployed to Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates, taking part in the operation. There are also presently Air Force B-52H bombers deployed to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which would have been well suited to this mission, but there is no indication that they participated. The F-15Es appeared to be carrying loads of at least five 2,000-pound class GBU-31/B Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) GPS-guided bombs. The Joint Strike Fighters had their external wingtip rails for the AIM-9X Sidewinder fitted, but did not appear to be carrying any of those air-to-air missiles. They were not carrying any other external ordnance, suggesting that they were likely each carrying two additional GBU-31/Bs.

Yet Silver Cat is still insisting they were unguided munitions. Hilarious.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And not one has anyone winning anything.

Nucleophobia detected. Highly depends on your definition of the term "victory".

Pretty much, the only Government that would survive would be what's left of the America's Government. China and Russia wouldn't have a government at all.

It depends.

And neither would most of the countries in the world outside of some out of the way 3rd world countries. And how long they would last is questionable.

There are more than 2 million cities and towns in the world and a bit more than 3 thousands of strategic nuclear warheads. One warhead for 666 targets. Certainly, it is not "end of civilisation".

Russia and China will lose almost their entire Industrial Complex and over 95% of their population in the short and long term. The US will lose about 85%.

From where did you get this percents? Even "Mad Butcher" scenario gives near 30% losses.

All of a sudden, Arizona becomes cooler, rains more and becomes the new grain belt. In Russia, they completely lose their entire bread basket.

Ha! Their "bread basket" is Ukraine and Middle Asia.

It will take the US at least a decade, maybe 2 decades to dig it's way out but Russia and China will be closer to 100 years. Russia and China will know how to make the wheel they just won't have the industry to actually make them.

Really? What about Europe or India?

NOBODY want's MAD to be done. And if it's done, although the US will fare slightly better, if a nuclear bomb goes off, I want to be at the direct center of it because it would be more humane. If you can't see that then you are a fool.

If you can "see" it, you are a hallucinating environmentalist like a Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg.

You are doing it again. You only factor in the initial damage. You don't figure in the "Day After" and the weeks, months and years after that. Yes, only 30% will actually die on the initial barrage. But after that, it's going to be a slow death for as many as 95% of Russia and China population while the US will be in the upwards of 85%. You really need to look at the concentration of population of Russia and China versus the US. The US is spread out a lot more and will fare better. The US will still fare poor but not as disastrous as Russia and China. It's a war that no one will win, period. And it keeps the Russians, Chinese and the US from directly confronting each other to prevent it escalating to that level.

 

[MAGAman]

A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.

 

[Silver Cat]

Once again, since Silver Cat is still in denial, about the bombing of Qanus Island:

Official pictures that accompanied the press release did show F-35As and F-15Es, both of which are presently forward deployed to Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates, taking part in the operation. There are also presently Air Force B-52H bombers deployed to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which would have been well suited to this mission, but there is no indication that they participated. The F-15Es appeared to be carrying loads of at least five 2,000-pound class GBU-31/B Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) GPS-guided bombs. The Joint Strike Fighters had their external wingtip rails for the AIM-9X Sidewinder fitted, but did not appear to be carrying any of those air-to-air missiles. They were not carrying any other external ordnance, suggesting that they were likely each carrying two additional GBU-31/Bs.

Yet Silver Cat is still insisting they were unguided munitions. Hilarious.

Oh, man... Such articles are written not be be literally "believed", but to "deliver messages".
For example, there is an interesting article in TheGuardian:
US staged 'limited' nuclear battle against Russia in war game
"US staged 'limited' nuclear battle against Russia in war game


The Pentagon has briefed about the simulated exchange in a move that could signal readiness to fight and win nuclear conflict

Julian Borger in Washington

Mon 24 Feb 2020 23.14 GMTLast modified on Tue 25 Feb 202018.55 GMT

Shares
659


The US conducted a military exercise last week which simulated a “limited” nuclear exchange with Russia, a senior Pentagon official has confirmed.

The war game is notable because of the defence department’s highly unusual decision to brief journalists about the details and because it embodied the controversial notion that it might be possible to fight, and win, a battle with nuclear weapons, without the exchange leading to an all-out world-ending conflict.

The exercise comes just weeks after the US deployed a new low-yield submarine-launched warheadcommissioned by Donald Trump, as a counter to Russian tactical weapons and intended to deter their use.

Acording to a transcript of a background briefing by senior Pentagon officials, the defence secretary, Mark Esper, took part in what was described as a “mini-exercise” at US Strategic Command in Nebraska. Esper played himself in the simulated crisis, in which Russia launched an attack on a US target in Europe.

“The scenario included a European contingency where you are conducting a war with Russia, and Russia decides to use a low-yield limited nuclear weapon against a site on Nato territory,” a senior official said. “And then you go through the conversation that you would have with the secretary of defense and then with the president, ultimately, to decide how to respond.”

The official said that “in the course of [the] exercise, we simulated responding with a nuclear weapon”, but described it as a “limited response”.

 

[Silver Cat]

A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.

You see, Russia with its poor economic is not a great threat by itself. China with its poor military force is not a threat, too. But together they are a threat. Shanghai Pact (SCO), is the clear and present danger.

The SCO is widely regarded as the "alliance of the East", due to its growing centrality in Asia-Pacific, and has been the primary security pillar of the region. It is the largest regional organisation in the world in terms of geographical coverage and population, covering three-fifths of the Eurasian continent and nearly half of the human population.
---------------------------

 

[Silver Cat]

And not one has anyone winning anything.

Nucleophobia detected. Highly depends on your definition of the term "victory".

Pretty much, the only Government that would survive would be what's left of the America's Government. China and Russia wouldn't have a government at all.

It depends.

And neither would most of the countries in the world outside of some out of the way 3rd world countries. And how long they would last is questionable.

There are more than 2 million cities and towns in the world and a bit more than 3 thousands of strategic nuclear warheads. One warhead for 666 targets. Certainly, it is not "end of civilisation".

Russia and China will lose almost their entire Industrial Complex and over 95% of their population in the short and long term. The US will lose about 85%.

From where did you get this percents? Even "Mad Butcher" scenario gives near 30% losses.

All of a sudden, Arizona becomes cooler, rains more and becomes the new grain belt. In Russia, they completely lose their entire bread basket.

Ha! Their "bread basket" is Ukraine and Middle Asia.

It will take the US at least a decade, maybe 2 decades to dig it's way out but Russia and China will be closer to 100 years. Russia and China will know how to make the wheel they just won't have the industry to actually make them.

Really? What about Europe or India?

NOBODY want's MAD to be done. And if it's done, although the US will fare slightly better, if a nuclear bomb goes off, I want to be at the direct center of it because it would be more humane. If you can't see that then you are a fool.

If you can "see" it, you are a hallucinating environmentalist like a Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg.

You are doing it again. You only factor in the initial damage. You don't figure in the "Day After" and the weeks, months and years after that. Yes, only 30% will actually die on the initial barrage. But after that, it's going to be a slow death for as many as 95% of Russia and China population while the US will be in the upwards of 85%. You really need to look at the concentration of population of Russia and China versus the US. The US is spread out a lot more and will fare better. The US will still fare poor but not as disastrous as Russia and China. It's a war that no one will win, period. And it keeps the Russians, Chinese and the US from directly confronting each other to prevent it escalating to that level.

Oh, my. The level of thirty percent casualties can be reached only in Russia-USA "mad butchers" exchanges. But, the most common idea is that the full-scale nuclear war is a world war, at least "NATO vs CSTO" or "NATO+ vs SCO". And in a world war we have to divide 7000 warheads against 2 000 000 cities and towns.
Another moment, that not all warheads will hit their targets - some of them will be eliminated by the enemies strikes, some - intercepted by ABD, some - failed because of tech problems.
And the most important moment, is that "Mad Butcher" plans are loser's plans. Just imagine two states: "Ursia" and "Pindosia" going to nuke each other. They can optimise their nuclear attack plans to kill maximum of the opponent's civilians, to destroy his industry or eliminate his military force.
For example Ursia choose to kill 30% of Pindosia's civilians, and Pindosia choose to eliminate Ursia's Army. At the next turn almost intacted Pindosian Army invade defenceless Ursia and genocide 100% of the Ursian population. Pindosia win.
Certainly, the real life is much more complicated, but it is not a big secret, that the reasonable warplans of the nuclear states are not focused on the mass murder of civilians.

 

[Silver Cat]

You: NATO could not defeat might S-400!
SanePeople: Sure they could, with all these aircraft and weapons
You: No those weapons were already nuked

No. Anybody can defeat S-400 (and any other target), even an almost unarmed guerillas. The only questions is how exactly do it, what forces you need for it and what tactic should you choose.
There are several possible ways to defeat Kaliningrad's defence region (even for "European Army"), but airstrike is definetly not one of them.

Modern war is a nuclear war. .

Except for the past 75 years that have proven you wrong.

No. There were no big war because of the clear understanding, that the modern war is a nuclear war. The nuclear deterrence, you know.

 

[Silver Cat]

No. Iranian or even Syrian forces are not protected by the Russian IADS. Russia is neutral in Syria-Israel conflict.

Russian equipment, ditzo.

You see, Iranian proxies overhelm USA-Israelis IADS sometimes, too. It's just a local game - exchange with missiles strikes without any significant result. "Disturbing fire" and "reconnaissance by combat".
The Jews can't use their aviation in Syrian or Iranian airspace as free as they wish, and the Arabs and Persians can't use their aviation in the Jewish airspace as free as they wish. "IADS in being", you know.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No. Iranian or even Syrian forces are not protected by the Russian IADS. Russia is neutral in Syria-Israel conflict.

Russian equipment, ditzo.

You see, Iranian proxies overhelm USA-Israelis IADS sometimes, too. It's just a local game - exchange with missiles strikes without any significant result. "Disturbing fire" and "reconnaissance by combat".
The Jews can't use their aviation in Syrian or Iranian airspace as free as they wish, and the Arabs and Persians can't use their aviation in the Jewish airspace as free as they wish. "IADS in being", you know.

The Israelis know that in order to not set off the tinderbox, they need to show restraint. So they do what they must do to keep their borders safe from the Iranians. That means keeping an area that they need for refueling to strike or recon Iran clear of any and all missile sites. And it doesn't matter if it's a Syrian or an Iranian missile site. It gets taken out. The Russians know this and make sure they don't feed that tinderbox. But it doesn't stop the Russians from selling the Syrians the hardware.

As for Arab or Syrian Air Power operating in Israel, that just isn't happening. The closest thing to that would be some fringe groups lobbing a few unguided rockets and mortars in annoyance attacks. Iran supports those fringe groups. Israel knows who the real enemy is. And it's not really Syria nor an Arab State. If you care to check, neither Syria nor Iran are Arabs. And if either of them wants to get burnt real bad, they know all they have to do is start flying in Israel air space. BTW, in order for Iran to do this, they also would need refueling bases. Not Air to Air Refueling like the Israelis, but Iran would need to have refueling bases in Syria. Israel just won't let that happen.

 

[Silver Cat]

No. Iranian or even Syrian forces are not protected by the Russian IADS. Russia is neutral in Syria-Israel conflict.

Russian equipment, ditzo.

You see, Iranian proxies overhelm USA-Israelis IADS sometimes, too. It's just a local game - exchange with missiles strikes without any significant result. "Disturbing fire" and "reconnaissance by combat".
The Jews can't use their aviation in Syrian or Iranian airspace as free as they wish, and the Arabs and Persians can't use their aviation in the Jewish airspace as free as they wish. "IADS in being", you know.

The Israelis know that in order to not set off the tinderbox, they need to show restraint. So they do what they must do to keep their borders safe from the Iranians. That means keeping an area that they need for refueling to strike or recon Iran clear of any and all missile sites. And it doesn't matter if it's a Syrian or an Iranian missile site. It gets taken out. The Russians know this and make sure they don't feed that tinderbox. But it doesn't stop the Russians from selling the Syrians the hardware.

As for Arab or Syrian Air Power operating in Israel, that just isn't happening. The closest thing to that would be some fringe groups lobbing a few unguided rockets and mortars in annoyance attacks. Iran supports those fringe groups. Israel knows who the real enemy is. And it's not really Syria nor an Arab State. If you care to check, neither Syria nor Iran are Arabs. And if either of them wants to get burnt real bad, they know all they have to do is start flying in Israel air space. BTW, in order for Iran to do this, they also would need refueling bases. Not Air to Air Refueling like the Israelis, but Iran would need to have refueling bases in Syria. Israel just won't let that happen.

It is not relevant. Ok. Lets compare two examples - Russia and Israel. Russia is interested in killing Turkish and Saudies proxies in Syria and desroying their facilities. Israel is interested in killing Iranian proxies in Syria and destroying their facilities.
Targets are equal. Russia use two dumb bombs FAB-500 (price - $100 each when they were new fifty years ago, now - less than zero) to destroy a weapons warehouse. $100×2=$200. IAF needs to launch twenty AGM-142 ($1500000 each) to destroy a same target (with 50/50 odds) 20×M1,5=$30M.
Do you see the difference? So, why the expences are so different? Yes, it is result of IADS existence. So, Syrian IADS is rather effective. Israel can't bomb Syrian targets as often as Russia do, so the most of Turkish and Saudies proxies are killed, and most of Iranian proxies are still alive.