F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[Vrenn]

About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.

Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "

Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.

The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"

At some point, both sides will come to their senses.

If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.

But let's say they don't. The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes. And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.

The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.

And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike. That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.

This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.

The US won't win but Russia will lose even worse.

Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.

Then there is the Naval Assets. And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted. As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.

Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.

It's a no win situation for both sides.

Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.

You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible. Not even close. They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria. They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.

I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".

Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange? While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age. But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.

I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war, important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".

Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine? Nope. They have the manpower. They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now. The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels. Sacrifical Lambs. Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.

Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".

Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't working.

Really? Oh, man...

I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine. That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?

You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.

If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans. Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return. If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.

This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.

What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?

In order to stop being American, yes. To the very last soul. The Japanese learned (sort of), the Germans learned that the US is NOT like other nations. Don't piss off the Eagle.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.

You have any evidence to support that claim?

Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled, yet wasn't. Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.

The F-35 has never been cancelled because:

1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.

2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.

So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.

It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming. That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.

There are three different airframes. Try landing an A model and all you would have is spare parts that did not fall in the water off the flight deck and if it did managed to land, it would shoot off the other end because it has no ability to land on the carrier.

 

[Silver Cat]

About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.

Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "

Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.

The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"

At some point, both sides will come to their senses.

If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.

But let's say they don't. The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes. And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.

The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.

And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike. That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.

This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.

The US won't win but Russia will lose even worse.

Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.

Then there is the Naval Assets. And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted. As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.

Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.

It's a no win situation for both sides.

Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.

You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible. Not even close. They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria. They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.

I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".

Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange? While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age. But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.

I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war, important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".

Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine? Nope. They have the manpower. They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now. The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels. Sacrifical Lambs. Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.

Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".

Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't working.

Really? Oh, man...

I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine. That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?

You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.

If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans. Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return. If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.

This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.

What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?

In order to stop being American, yes. To the very last soul. The Japanese learned (sort of), the Germans learned that the US is NOT like other nations. Don't piss off the Eagle.

Bla-bla-bla... Americans, who withdrew their forces from Vietnam are still Americans. It is not a big deal to withdraw forces from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Europe or whatever else.

 

[westwall]

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.

You have any evidence to support that claim?

Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled, yet wasn't. Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.

The F-35 has never been cancelled because:

1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.

2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.

So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.

It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming. That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.

There are three different airframes. Try landing an A model and all you would have is spare parts that did not fall in the water off the flight deck and if it did managed to land, it would shoot off the other end because it has no ability to land on the carrier.

The basic design had to be compromised to get all the features the various militaries wanted. It's a jack of all trades aircraft, master of none, in an increasingly deadly airspace where mastery wins.

 

[Dayton3]

The basic design had to be compromised to get all the features the various militaries wanted. It's a jack of all trades aircraft, master of none, in an increasingly deadly airspace where mastery wins.

True. But the F-35 was never intended to be a world beating aircraft in ANY role. The U.S. intended that its F-22s would seize control over contested air space and that then the F-35s would come in and make ground attack missions and mop up any left over enemy fighters.

 

[Vrenn]

About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.

Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "

Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.

The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"

At some point, both sides will come to their senses.

If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.

But let's say they don't. The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes. And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.

The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.

And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike. That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.

This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.

The US won't win but Russia will lose even worse.

Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.

Then there is the Naval Assets. And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted. As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.

Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.

It's a no win situation for both sides.

Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.

You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible. Not even close. They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria. They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.

I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".

Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange? While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age. But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.

I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war, important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".

Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine? Nope. They have the manpower. They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now. The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels. Sacrifical Lambs. Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.

Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".

Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't working.

Really? Oh, man...

I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine. That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?

You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.

If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans. Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return. If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.

This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.

What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?

In order to stop being American, yes. To the very last soul. The Japanese learned (sort of), the Germans learned that the US is NOT like other nations. Don't piss off the Eagle.

Bla-bla-bla... Americans, who withdrew their forces from Vietnam are still Americans. It is not a big deal to withdraw forces from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Europe or whatever else.

That was under some really poor management. Since then we have a phenominal winning record. No more playing by anyone elses rules. We now are back to fighting to win when we wish it. And nothing your Russia can do can even slow that down. Even after 2 Nuke throws from both sides, there will be US Marines in Moscow looking for your leaders if they are still alive and American Fighters over Moscow as well. Russia will become the 51st state of the United States. And that is before we have another election in the United States. Even your worst won't destroy America.

This "Discussion" for me is over.

 

[Vrenn]

The basic design had to be compromised to get all the features the various militaries wanted. It's a jack of all trades aircraft, master of none, in an increasingly deadly airspace where mastery wins.

True. But the F-35 was never intended to be a world beating aircraft in ANY role. The U.S. intended that its F-22s would seize control over contested air space and that then the F-35s would come in and make ground attack missions and mop up any left over enemy fighters.

What most people don't understand, to the USN, there are NO Stealth Fighters or Bombers that exist. And a SM-2 is meaner and nastier than a whole bushel basket full of Air to Air Missiles or just about anything a Fighter can carry close enough to get a shot at the carrier. Yes, Stealth is being caught up with so everyone just finds another way. I imagine that distance weapons like Lasers for Aircraft and Particle Weapons for Naval will be coming online soon. But who knows. Until then the F-35 is the bad boy on the block when paired up with the F-22 or the new F-15EX.

 

[westwall]

The basic design had to be compromised to get all the features the various militaries wanted. It's a jack of all trades aircraft, master of none, in an increasingly deadly airspace where mastery wins.

True. But the F-35 was never intended to be a world beating aircraft in ANY role. The U.S. intended that its F-22s would seize control over contested air space and that then the F-35s would come in and make ground attack missions and mop up any left over enemy fighters.

Correct. And that is a mistake. The aviation world is becoming ever more specialized. Ignoring that is a fatal mistake.

 

[Silver Cat]

About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.

Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "

Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.

The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"

At some point, both sides will come to their senses.

If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.

But let's say they don't. The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes. And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.

The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.

And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike. That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.

This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.

The US won't win but Russia will lose even worse.

Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.

Then there is the Naval Assets. And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted. As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.

Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.

It's a no win situation for both sides.

Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.

You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible. Not even close. They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria. They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.

I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".

Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange? While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age. But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.

I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war, important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".

Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine? Nope. They have the manpower. They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now. The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels. Sacrifical Lambs. Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.

Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".

Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't working.

Really? Oh, man...

I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine. That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?

You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.

If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans. Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return. If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.

This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.

What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?

In order to stop being American, yes. To the very last soul. The Japanese learned (sort of), the Germans learned that the US is NOT like other nations. Don't piss off the Eagle.

Bla-bla-bla... Americans, who withdrew their forces from Vietnam are still Americans. It is not a big deal to withdraw forces from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Europe or whatever else.

That was under some really poor management.

Do you really believe that Baiden-Harris clique is better? Are you ready to perform a jump of faith by stressing the Russians without really good reasons, without really good weapon and without really good, specialized jets?

Since then we have a phenominal winning record. No more playing by anyone elses rules. We now are back to fighting to win when we wish it.

Really? Wishful thinking is a nice thing, but it is really insufficient in some situations. And the winning a nuclear war is one of those situations. F-35 is not a tool to win the war against Russia and/or China.

 

[Vrenn]

The basic design had to be compromised to get all the features the various militaries wanted. It's a jack of all trades aircraft, master of none, in an increasingly deadly airspace where mastery wins.

True. But the F-35 was never intended to be a world beating aircraft in ANY role. The U.S. intended that its F-22s would seize control over contested air space and that then the F-35s would come in and make ground attack missions and mop up any left over enemy fighters.

Correct. And that is a mistake. The aviation world is becoming ever more specialized. Ignoring that is a fatal mistake.

hence the next gen fighters for the AF and USN going back to the Air Superiority role. We don't need more Assault Fighters with the F-35 being in large numbers. I think 1000 is plenty.

 

[Silver Cat]

The basic design had to be compromised to get all the features the various militaries wanted. It's a jack of all trades aircraft, master of none, in an increasingly deadly airspace where mastery wins.

True. But the F-35 was never intended to be a world beating aircraft in ANY role. The U.S. intended that its F-22s would seize control over contested air space and that then the F-35s would come in and make ground attack missions and mop up any left over enemy fighters.

Correct. And that is a mistake. The aviation world is becoming ever more specialized. Ignoring that is a fatal mistake.

hence the next gen fighters for the AF and USN going back to the Air Superiority role. We don't need more Assault Fighters with the F-35 being in large numbers. I think 1000 is plenty.

No. Next gen fighters, are going to use AMRAAM, too. May be even after year 2032.

 

[Silver Cat]

What is even more important, both Russia and China improve their military forces, while the current Administration do everything to lose this arms race.
Did you see this new PLA's promo video?

 

[Dayton3]

hence the next gen fighters for the AF and USN going back to the Air Superiority role. We don't need more Assault Fighters with the F-35 being in large numbers. I think 1000 is plenty.

Except you miss the obvious. 1,000 combat aircraft actually means about 333 give or take will be available for combat at any given time.

Is that "plenty"?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.

You have any evidence to support that claim?

Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled, yet wasn't. Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.

The F-35 has never been cancelled because:

1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.

2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.

So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.

It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming. That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.

There are three different airframes. Try landing an A model and all you would have is spare parts that did not fall in the water off the flight deck and if it did managed to land, it would shoot off the other end because it has no ability to land on the carrier.

The basic design had to be compromised to get all the features the various militaries wanted. It's a jack of all trades aircraft, master of none, in an increasingly deadly airspace where mastery wins.

Will you push the "I believe button"? These are NOT the same aircraft.

 

[Vrenn]

hence the next gen fighters for the AF and USN going back to the Air Superiority role. We don't need more Assault Fighters with the F-35 being in large numbers. I think 1000 is plenty.

Except you miss the obvious. 1,000 combat aircraft actually means about 333 give or take will be available for combat at any given time.

Is that "plenty"?

Yes. When it's backed by 333 other Fighters. The US can bring more than 1000 fighters to the table at any time of day in a matter of a day or two. The US has the absolute largest Air Wing (AF, Navy, Marines, Army) in the world. In fact (can't prove this) the US can field more Air Wing at any time and any place more than the rest of the world combined.

 

[Dayton3]

hence the next gen fighters for the AF and USN going back to the Air Superiority role. We don't need more Assault Fighters with the F-35 being in large numbers. I think 1000 is plenty.

Except you miss the obvious. 1,000 combat aircraft actually means about 333 give or take will be available for combat at any given time.

Is that "plenty"?

Yes. When it's backed by 333 other Fighters. The US can bring more than 1000 fighters to the table at any time of day in a matter of a day or two. The US has the absolute largest Air Wing (AF, Navy, Marines, Army) in the world. In fact (can't prove this) the US can field more Air Wing at any time and any place more than the rest of the world combined.

Can the U.S. bring "1,000 fighters" to three or four tables at once and maintain them in combat for at minimum several months?

 

[Vrenn]

hence the next gen fighters for the AF and USN going back to the Air Superiority role. We don't need more Assault Fighters with the F-35 being in large numbers. I think 1000 is plenty.

Except you miss the obvious. 1,000 combat aircraft actually means about 333 give or take will be available for combat at any given time.

Is that "plenty"?

Yes. When it's backed by 333 other Fighters. The US can bring more than 1000 fighters to the table at any time of day in a matter of a day or two. The US has the absolute largest Air Wing (AF, Navy, Marines, Army) in the world. In fact (can't prove this) the US can field more Air Wing at any time and any place more than the rest of the world combined.

Can the U.S. bring "1,000 fighters" to three or four tables at once and maintain them in combat for at minimum several months?

They don't have to. But they can bring at least 500 to all 4 objectives. And that is just the AF. Now add in the Navy and Marines. There are more than 1000 F-16s alone in the inventory. Add the F-15s and F-22 plus the F-35 and A/F-18. You can look up the actual numbers as well as I can.

 

[Silver Cat]

The basic design had to be compromised to get all the features the various militaries wanted. It's a jack of all trades aircraft, master of none, in an increasingly deadly airspace where mastery wins.

True. But the F-35 was never intended to be a world beating aircraft in ANY role. The U.S. intended that its F-22s would seize control over contested air space and that then the F-35s would come in and make ground attack missions and mop up any left over enemy fighters.

Correct. And that is a mistake. The aviation world is becoming ever more specialized. Ignoring that is a fatal mistake.

hence the next gen fighters for the AF and USN going back to the Air Superiority role. We don't need more Assault Fighters with the F-35 being in large numbers. I think 1000 is plenty.

Large numbers? A bit more than 600 both for the USA and their allies . And the decision about it's full-rate production is still on hold.

Pentagon Keeps $398 Billion F-35’s Full-Rate Production on Hold

The Pentagon has put a decision on approving full-rate production of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 on indefinite hold, as officials remain unable to say when the fighter jet will be ready for combat testing that’s been delayed repeatedly since 2017.

www.bloomberg.com

And two hundred of pre-attack American F-35s, means less than one hundred of survivors, who have to act in the strange post-attack environment, highly likely - with the serious problems with Command and Control, problems with supply, without com, nav and recon sats, and against well-prepared Russian and/or Chinese forces.

 

[AZrailwhale]

About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.

Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "

Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.

The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"

At some point, both sides will come to their senses.

If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.

But let's say they don't. The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes. And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.

The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.

And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike. That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.

This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.

The US won't win but Russia will lose even worse.

Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.

Then there is the Naval Assets. And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted. As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.

Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.

It's a no win situation for both sides.

Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.

You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible. Not even close. They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria. They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.

I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".

Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange? While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age. But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.

I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war, important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".

Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine? Nope. They have the manpower. They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now. The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels. Sacrifical Lambs. Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.

Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".

Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't working.

Really? Oh, man...

I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine. That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?

You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.

If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans. Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return. If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.

This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.

What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?

There is only one problem with your scenario, when you launch, the USA is going to flush every silo and launch every bomber before your counterforce strike can land. It's called use it or lose it. After those massive US strikes land, whomever is in charge of the US forces at that point will evaluate what targets remain in Russia and use submarine launched missiles to kill them. There will be no winner in that scenario, just survivors of the nuclear winter that follows and since all of Russia is north and cold already, there won't be many survivors for the Chinese to kill when their survivors invade.

 

[Silver Cat]

About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.

Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "

Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.

The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"

At some point, both sides will come to their senses.

If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.

But let's say they don't. The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes. And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.

The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.

And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike. That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.

This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.

The US won't win but Russia will lose even worse.

Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.

Then there is the Naval Assets. And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted. As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.

Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.

It's a no win situation for both sides.

Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.

You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible. Not even close. They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria. They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.

I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".

Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange? While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age. But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.

I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war, important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".

Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine? Nope. They have the manpower. They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now. The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels. Sacrifical Lambs. Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.

Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".

Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't working.

Really? Oh, man...

I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine. That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?

You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.

If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans. Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return. If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.

This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.

What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?

There is only one problem with your scenario, when you launch, the USA is going to flush every silo and launch every bomber before your counterforce strike can land. It's called use it or lose it.

No. It's called "Launch under attack" and it was not very reliable plan even in the better times. Many modern American "strategists" (especially the Democrats) more concerned with the "prevention" of the war, than with winning it.

And anyway, it can be tricked out, especially if the US Administration and high military and intelligent stuff will be incompetent and self-confident as they accustomed to be.

After those massive US strikes land, whomever is in charge of the US forces at that point will evaluate what targets remain in Russia and use submarine launched missiles to kill them. There will be no winner in that scenario, just survivors of the nuclear winter that follows and since all of Russia is north and cold already, there won't be many survivors for the Chinese to kill when their survivors invade.

There are no "winners" in the exchanging of strikes, one can only "prevail" in it. And yes, if the one side is really ready, and another is not, the side which demonstrate better readiness - will "prevail" in the battle, and may even win the war (and write conditions of peace).
Then, "nuclear winter" is false-scientific crap, at least because it absolutely ignore emission of CO_2 and H_2O during those fires. In the matter of fact, nobody has reliable climate models even to calculate changes of the climate in the "normal" situation. But if the one side has Ministry of Reserves and another has not, if one side has rich and defenseless neighbors (like China and EU), and another side - has not, then, of course, one side can prevail after unpredictable climate change.

Yes, of course, victory can be very expensive, but the war will be finished someday, and there will be winners and losers in it. And as you said it is unsafe to allow somebody (like China or EU) remain neutral in this shooting party. That's why, very likely, the nuclear war will be World War III - the war not only between the USA and Russia, but between large military blocks. Say, between NATO+ and Shanghai Pact+. Therefore you need to divide, say, two thousands of "countervalue" warheads to two millions of cities and towns in the world. One bomb for one thousand of cities. Does it still sounds like a "Total Nuclear Annihilation" and "Assured Mutual Destruction"?

Anyway, I don't say, that the nuclear war (or even conventional or cold war) can be profitable. I say, that "preemptive war" is much more safer than "uncontrolled escalation" and "losing initiative".