Hmmm....looks like the long range missle thing didn't work out so well...

[Zavulon]

And once again, they have to be right off the coast of China in able to do that?

You know those missiles have a range of over 4,000 miles, right?

More distance - less warheads. Closer to a potential enemy - more chances of problems. If you are close to both of them - the probability of the problems is doubled. Of course there are different patroling zones and different circumstances, but usually they don't want to be simultaneously too provocative and too vulnerable. And any organisation of patrolling is exactly about balancing contradictionary priorities.

 

[kyzr]

"Game Theory" doesn't begin to cover the known and unknown "unknowns".
NATO response?
B-2 Bombers?
Space based weapons (? no one cheats, right?)
Ship based responses?
AI's effect on weapons systems?

 

[Vrenn]

It is very interceptable. Just not with anything that is in the theater.

And exactly how useful is an IRBM with conventional warheads? Name any time in history that conventional ballistic missiles really made a difference in warfare. Ultimately, they are an extremely expensive and resource-hungry method to deliver bombs. If Russia was as dominant as many seem to claim, they would be sending over T-160s with bombs and not resorting to ballistic missiles.

Oh, and you are way off of the payload. That is the payload of nuclear munitions, the payload of conventional munitions is less than a third of what you are claiming. Go ahead and do the math, it contains six clusters, each cluster having six 1,200 kg submunitions.

The cost of using those MIRV Missiles is staggering when you can do the same job with a single missile. I guess Putin is running out of a lot of things.

 

[Zavulon]

"Game Theory" doesn't begin to cover the known and unknown "unknowns".
NATO response?
B-2 Bombers?
Space based weapons (? no one cheats, right?)
Ship based responses?
AI's effect on weapons systems?

Of course it is much more complicated. But basically - if the both sides prefer nuclear war to a conventional defeat, then the nuclear war is inevitable. And if the nuclear war is inevitable, then the side who attack first, attack fast, attack precise, attack smart, attack prepared and avoiding unnecessary collateral damage have the huge advantage and even have significant chance to avoid retaliation. While even decisive flawless victory in a nuclear war will cause significant and barely predictable impact on the international relationships.

If one side is ready to escalate to a nuclear war, and another one is not ready, then, the side who are ready can win simply by rasing the stakes.

 

[kyzr]

Of course it is much more complicated. But basically - if the both sides prefer nuclear war to a conventional defeat, then the nuclear war is inevitable. And if the nuclear war is inevitable, then the side who attack first, attack fast, attack precise, attack smart, attack prepared and avoiding unnecessary collateral damage have the huge advantage and even have significant chance to avoid retaliation. While even decisive flawless victory in a nuclear war will cause significant and barely predictable impact on the international relationships.
If one side is ready to escalate to a nuclear war, and another one is not ready, then, the side who are ready can win simply by raising the stakes.

1. There is no winning a nuclear war. Didn't you see the movie "War Games"?
2. So I vehemently disagree with your post. There is no "avoiding retaliation", think about it.
3. If one-side prefers a nuclear war to a conventional defeat then a nuclear war is launched. There is no winner, it is the MAD (mutually assured destruction) strategy in action. First use nuclear war has to be a bluff, because a radioactive world has no winners.
4. Here is Einstein's prediction.

5. There can be no "decisive and flawless victory in a nuclear war". I'm blanking on how that can even be contemplated, MAD retaliation is inevitable. (Putin thought he could capture Ukraine in 3-days, so "flawless" war planning is harder than it looks)

 

[Zavulon]

1. There is no winning a nuclear war. Didn't you see the movie "War Games"?

I watched the movie (both movies) and read the book. But it's not the only movie I've watched. I like scy fi movies (and books). And in many of them humanity not just survive, but even improve its life. Did you watch "A hundred years ahead"?

2. So I vehemently disagree with your post. There is no "avoiding retaliation", think about it.

But US nuclead posure review doesn't support your idea. If the deterrence failed they will search a peace solution on the best possible (in current circumstances) terms. And the "best possible peace terms" definetely doesn't mean "commiting mass murder with virtually total suicide".

If the first Russian counter-force strike is effective and with minimal collateral damage - American government will negotiate about best possible terms of peace (will the USA lose only Alaska or both Alaska and California) and won't commit national-wide suicide just for jesture (at least if the Russians don't demand unconditional surrender).

3. If one-side prefers a nuclear war to a conventional defeat then a nuclear war is launched. There is no winner, it is the MAD (mutually assured destruction) strategy in action. First use nuclear war has to be a bluff, because a radioactive world has no winners.

No. If one side is ready to escalate and another is not ready, the second side will make few steps back to avoid a nuclear war as soon as the first side demonstrates its decisivness.

4. Here is Einstein's prediction.
View attachment 1049591

Bla-bla-bla.

5. There can be no "decisive and flawless victory in a nuclear war". I'm blanking on how that can even be contemplated, MAD retaliation is inevitable. (Putin thought he could capture Ukraine in 3-days, so "flawless" war planning is harder than it looks)

Of course it can be. Simple example - Russia attack first and destroy most of US nuclear forces (and less than 1 mln of Americans are killed). Then, Russia declare humanitarian pause (some two days) and suggest really generous peace offer - like, say, USA don't retaliate, lost Alaska, but survive as an independent nation.

America in described circimstances may agree or may disagree. If they agree - its Russia's flawless victory. If they disagree and retaliate - Russia will suffer significant, but acceptable losses, and America will be virtually annihilated by the Russian strike.
In thise circumstances there will be significant pressure to accept Russian peace terms.
Ukraine didn't accept Russian peace terms in the first days of SMO, only because it was backed by the USA. But who will back the USA in the case of a nuclear war with Russia? Ukraine? France? Martians?

 

[PeterPilot]

The Party of War wanted to get in it's last provocation before they are swept out of power. It worked just as they had hoped. It gave Putin the excuse to test fire a set of hypersonic missiles and threaten NATO allies as this new missile can easily reach most NATO nations.

It was only one missile, but 6 warheads.

 

[Zavulon]

It was only one missile, but 6 warheads.

Actually, there were six packs of six warheads each - equals 36 warheads.

 

[kyzr]

I watched the movie (both movies) and read the book. But it's not the only movie I've watched. I like scy fi movies (and books). And in many of them humanity not just survive, but even improve its life. Did you watch "A hundred years ahead"?

But US nuclear posture review doesn't support your idea. If the deterrence failed they will search a peace solution on the best possible (in current circumstances) terms. And the "best possible peace terms" definitely doesn't mean "committing mass murder with virtually total suicide".

If the first Russian counter-force strike is effective and with minimal collateral damage - American government will negotiate about best possible terms of peace (will the USA lose only Alaska or both Alaska and California) and won't commit national-wide suicide just for gesture (at least if the Russians don't demand unconditional surrender).

No. If one side is ready to escalate and another is not ready, the second side will make few steps back to avoid a nuclear war as soon as the first side demonstrates its decisiveness. Of course it can be. Simple example - Russia attack first and destroy most of US nuclear forces (and less than 1 mln of Americans are killed). Then, Russia declare humanitarian pause (some two days) and suggest really generous peace offer - like, say, USA don't retaliate, lost Alaska, but survive as an independent nation.

America in described circumstances may agree or may disagree. If they agree - its Russia's flawless victory. If they disagree and retaliate - Russia will suffer significant, but acceptable losses, and America will be virtually annihilated by the Russian strike.
In these circumstances there will be significant pressure to accept Russian peace terms.
Ukraine didn't accept Russian peace terms in the first days of SMO, only because it was backed by the USA. But who will back the USA in the case of a nuclear war with Russia? Ukraine? France? Martians?

1. Netflix doesn't have "100 years ahead" yet.

2. US nuclear policy has always been MAD.

Nuclear strategy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3. If deterrence failed, the US would launch. Believe it. That's why deterrence works.

4. There would never be a peace discussion after a nuclear strike, that's why the president has the nuclear "football" always with him, any launch at us triggers an immediate nuclear response.

5. We don't believe that Russia could knock out much of the US nuclear "triad", submarines, B-2s, ICBMs.

6. Russia' acceptable losses? The US annihilated? Based on what? Wishful thinking? There would never be any peace discussions, only more nuclear exchanges.

7. Who will back the US? NATO.

8. Who will back Russia? Not China, they probably hope the US and Russia destroy each other.

 

[Mushroom]

We don't believe that Russia could knock out much of the US nuclear "triad", submarines, B-2s, ICBMs.

And not just the US. The launch of nuclear weapons on a NATO nation would mandate a nuclear response by all other NATO nations.

That means France and the UK as well. That's another 400 nukes. And if that was to happen, to be honest I would not put it past China to do the same thing. Because they know the nation that launches first would become an instant pariah nation, so they might decide to switch sides so none of the blowback would land on them. As well as possibly trying to reclaim Outer Manchuria.

But Zavulon is living in another world. That is obvious when he stated that Russia in their first strike would neutralize all of the US subs before they could launch. And there would be no US response, for... reasons. You simply can not reason with that kind of insanity, I only hope the Russian leaders are more rational than that.

 

[BackAgain]

Both Russia and Ukraine are running out of "cannon fodder".
Lets hope peace breaks out soon.

Russia has 750,000 dead, and Ukraine probably around that many. Such a stupid loss of lives.

Yep. Sad is the right word.

 

[Zavulon]

1. Netflix doesn't have "100 years ahead" yet.

Are you that loyal Netflix customer that you are not searching for another sources of information? Like, say, YouTube?

2. US nuclear policy has always been MAD.

Nuclear strategy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's simply not true. MAD have been official nuclear policy only in late 60-s.

3. If deterrence failed, the US would launch. Believe it. That's why deterrence works.

Why I should believe you, and not believe your government's official doctrine and the sane logic.

4. There would never be a peace discussion after a nuclear strike, that's why the president has the nuclear "football" always with him, any launch at us triggers an immediate nuclear response.

Actually, vice versa. If your posture is "if we are attacked - immediately commit murder-suicide" POTUS doesn't need his football with him. A one-star General (or even a smart Colonel) is more than enough to launch the automatical retaliation strike if all decisions are already made in advance. POTUS has his football for only one reason - he must decide if it is necessary to launch retaliation strike or you can find a better solution (like lost Alaska and California, but save the USA).

5. We don't believe that Russia could knock out much of the US nuclear "triad", submarines, B-2s, ICBMs.

Yeah. I know. Back in 1941 most of your experts didn't believe that Japan can attack Pacific fleet. "There will be no American Port-Artur" they said.
But the authors of your Nuclear Posture do believe in this possibility.

6. Russia' acceptable losses? The US annihilated? Based on what? Wishful thinking? There would never be any peace discussions, only more nuclear exchanges.

Yeah. I know, there is that funny American conception "rationality of irrationality". But, you know, there is another conception "irrationality of irrationality".
Russians can't be sure if you are rational and after successful Russian counter-force stile you accept their generous peaceful proposal, of if you are irrational and won't accept those proposals. But in the both cases it is the better strategy (for Russians) to attack first. If you are rational thinkers - it will allow them to sign the peace on the mutually acceptable (but Russia-prefered) terms. If you are irrationally evil and even a direct and obvious threat of immediate virtually total annihilation can't stop you, then the first counter-force strike can, at least, decrease the possible damage you can cause. If you are irrational - the war is unavoidable, and if the war is unavoidable - it's much safer to attack first.

7. Who will back the US? NATO.

Do you mean England and France? With one survived SSBN max? You can't be serious.

8. Who will back Russia? Not China, they probably hope the US and Russia destroy each other.

Nobody will back neither the USA, nor Russia at least in the situation of large scale nuclear exchange. That's the point of central wars.

 

[kyzr]

Are you that loyal Netflix customer that you are not searching for another sources of information? Like, say, YouTube?

It's simply not true. MAD have been official nuclear policy only in late 60-s.

Why I should believe you, and not believe your government's official doctrine and the sane logic.

Actually, vice versa. If your posture is "if we are attacked - immediately commit murder-suicide" POTUS doesn't need his football with him. A one-star General (or even a smart Colonel) is more than enough to launch the automatic retaliation strike if all decisions are already made in advance. POTUS has his football for only one reason - he must decide if it is necessary to launch retaliation strike or you can find a better solution (like lost Alaska and California, but save the USA).

Yeah. I know. Back in 1941 most of your experts didn't believe that Japan can attack Pacific fleet. "There will be no American Port-Artur" they said.
But the authors of your Nuclear Posture do believe in this possibility.

Yeah. I know, there is that funny American conception "rationality of irrationality". But, you know, there is another conception "irrationality of irrationality".
Russians can't be sure if you are rational and after successful Russian counter-force stile you accept their generous peaceful proposal, of if you are irrational and won't accept those proposals. But in the both cases it is the better strategy (for Russians) to attack first. If you are rational thinkers - it will allow them to sign the peace on the mutually acceptable (but Russia-preferred) terms. If you are irrationally evil and even a direct and obvious threat of immediate virtually total annihilation can't stop you, then the first counter-force strike can, at least, decrease the possible damage you can cause. If you are irrational - the war is unavoidable, and if the war is unavoidable - it's much safer to attack first.

Do you mean England and France? With one survived SSBN max? You can't be serious.

Nobody will back neither the USA, nor Russia at least in the situation of large scale nuclear exchange. That's the point of central wars.

1. Your strategic deterrence clip is about 50 years old. Here is a newer one.

DOD Adjusts Nuclear Deterrence Strategy as Nuclear Peer Adversaries Escalate

Multiple nuclear peer adversaries challenge the security of the U.S. and its allies and partners, according to the Defense Department.

www.defense.gov

"The underlying logic of nuclear deterrence remains sound. Also, the U.S. remains committed to a safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent, he said."

2. Sane logic is that deterrence works. Sane logic says do not start a nuclear war you cannot win.

3. The point you are apparently missing is "nuclear miscalculation". Similar to when Putin thought he could take Ukraine in 3-days. There is no way to win a nuclear exchange. So its a matter of how stupid Putin is. Are you are familiar with chess computers and AI? One of my favorites are the matches between AlphaZero and Stockfish. Gary Kasparov said that watching AlphaZero play chess is like watching a super-intelligence from space show us how to really play chess. Putin may see that over time the US AI capability will only increase, so what can he do with a bad economy? Threaten nuclear blackmail? Good luck with that. Here is the AlphaZero link, AI will only improve over time, so how is the Russian AI program? Keeping up?

AlphaZero Crushes Stockfish In New 1,000-Game Match

In news reminiscent of the initial AlphaZero shockwave last December, the artificial intelligence company DeepMind released astounding results from an updated version of the machine-learning chess project today. The results leave no question, once again, that AlphaZero plays some of the...

www.chess.com

 

[Rigby5]

1. who said it, got a link (not RT of ´cos )

2. how many of those the horde has ?

{...
Nato foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels to discuss the rapidly escalating Russia-Ukraine conflict. On the agenda, among other things, is Russia’s recent attack on Ukraine with an experimental new hypersonic missile, never used in war before. Neither the US nor the UK currently has the capability to shoot down such a missile. But what threat does the Oreshnik pose to Europe and the US?

Russia first launched the Oreshnik on Nov 21, striking a weapons production plant in the Ukrainian city of Dnipro, in retaliation against Ukrainian strikes on a Russian military facility in Bryansk with US-supplied long-range ATACMS missiles. Following the launch, Putin threatened to target “military, military-industrial facilities or decision-making centres, including in Kyiv” with the Oreshnik, characterising such an attack as “comparable in strength to a nuclear strike”. President Zelensky’s residence and Ukrainian Parliament would be included under Putin’s definition of a decision-making centre.
...}
MSN

Does not matter how many they currently has, as they can produce hundreds in just a few months, and they can always fall back on a nuclear obliteration of the entire US, if we force them to.
This is very similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, except that now we are the bad guy.

 

[Rigby5]

Of course the US wants to commit a first strike offensive against Russia.
That not only is why the US deliberately caused the Maidan coup in 2014, but is why the US put nukes in Turkey and Poland, whenever a country joins NATO that is naive enough to allow the US to use them.
The Ukraine is the perfect place to launch a first strike from since it is inside the Russian defense grid, and that makes a launch from the Ukraine, undetectable.

So obviously is it ever looks to Russia is not going to decisively win in the Ukraine, then there only option is to obliterate the US with nukes. There is no other possible alternative.

 

[AZrailwhale]

{...
Nato foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels to discuss the rapidly escalating Russia-Ukraine conflict. On the agenda, among other things, is Russia’s recent attack on Ukraine with an experimental new hypersonic missile, never used in war before. Neither the US nor the UK currently has the capability to shoot down such a missile. But what threat does the Oreshnik pose to Europe and the US?

Russia first launched the Oreshnik on Nov 21, striking a weapons production plant in the Ukrainian city of Dnipro, in retaliation against Ukrainian strikes on a Russian military facility in Bryansk with US-supplied long-range ATACMS missiles. Following the launch, Putin threatened to target “military, military-industrial facilities or decision-making centres, including in Kyiv” with the Oreshnik, characterising such an attack as “comparable in strength to a nuclear strike”. President Zelensky’s residence and Ukrainian Parliament would be included under Putin’s definition of a decision-making centre.
...}
MSN

Does not matter how many they currently has, as they can produce hundreds in just a few months, and they can always fall back on a nuclear obliteration of the entire US, if we force them to.
This is very similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, except that now we are the bad guy.

I doubt that Russia could produce ten a year. Russia has no access to modern high-tech electronics. The components of the missile were scavenged from decommissioned older missiles. Even if Russia launched a massive strike against France, the UK and the USA with hypersonic missiles, the ISA would have time to flush all of its missiles and launch all the B-2s. The SSBNs, SSGNs and SSNs at sea are always on alert. A launch order would that less than a minute by ELF, and the missile subs have orders to retaliate on their own if contact is lost with the NMCC,

 

[AZrailwhale]

Of course the US wants to commit a first strike offensive against Russia.
That not only is why the US deliberately caused the Maidan coup in 2014, but is why the US put nukes in Turkey and Poland, whenever a country joins NATO that is naive enough to allow the US to use them.
The Ukraine is the perfect place to launch a first strike from since it is inside the Russian defense grid, and that makes a launch from the Ukraine, undetectable.

So obviously is it ever looks to Russia is not going to decisively win in the Ukraine, then there only option is to obliterate the US with nukes. There is no other possible alternative.

The USA has no nukes in any country bordering Russia. The closest are the independent French and British nuclear missiles and gravity bombs. You keep repeating that lie.
If the USA wanted to mount a first strike the B-2 is the perfect weapon and it has been service for decades. The first warning the Russians would have of a first strike would be when 17 targets would be vaporized by B-61 or B-83 nuclear gravity bombs. Then the B-2s would go on to vaporize up to another fifteen targets each. The B-2 fleet alone could destroy 272 targets ranging from cities to ICBM launch sites. The B-2s are essentially undetectable and invulnerable to Russian air defenses. Fighters might get lucky and find one or two before they empty their rotary launchers.

 

[Vrenn]

The USA has no nukes in any country bordering Russia. The closest are the independent French and British nuclear missiles and gravity bombs. You keep repeating that lie.

One of the reasons for the "Missiles over Cuba" was the fact we had them in Turkey. The Jupiter was a medium range Nuclear Tipped Missile. It was used as a tradeoff to get the Russian Medium Range Nuclear tipped missiles out of Cuba.

Today, there are Tactical Bombers laden with B-61 nuclear bombs. Now, officially they claim that there are no loaded bombers in Turkey but that was a lie all along. At Incirlik Turkey, there are 40 B-61 Nuclear Bombs (as of 2016) and at least 2 F-15Es. In my day, they F-4E had that role. The AC are not stationed there. They have to be rotated out in less than 30 days. If they are not, it's an agreement that they become the property of the Turkish Government. No, not once has that exchange to Turkey ever happened. When we were TDY into Incirlik, no pictures could be taken of the F-4s on alert status. If you did point a camera in that general direction, the SPs would come out and confiscate your camera, film and all. Plus, when you got back to the CO you were in very very deep kimchee.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Of course the US wants to commit a first strike offensive against Russia.
That not only is why the US deliberately caused the Maidan coup in 2014, but is why the US put nukes in Turkey and Poland, whenever a country joins NATO that is naive enough to allow the US to use them.
The Ukraine is the perfect place to launch a first strike from since it is inside the Russian defense grid, and that makes a launch from the Ukraine, undetectable.

So obviously is it ever looks to Russia is not going to decisively win in the Ukraine, then there only option is to obliterate the US with nukes. There is no other possible alternative.

WRONG

The uS caused no such coup. The US NEVER put nukes in poland

The US has no need or desire to put nukes in Ukraine

The russians would be destrpoyed if thety tried nukes and cannot survive such an option

you are a fool and liar

 

[Mushroom]

Russia has no access to modern high-tech electronics.

That is a large reason that experts believe that the T-14 Armata has not made an appearance at all in the conflict and they are raiding old stockpiles for T-72 tanks. In fact, it is rather telling that the most commonly seen tank Russia has been using in the conflict is an absolutely ancient relic that dates to the early 1970s. And most experts point directly at the lack of the high tech electronics that Russia needs to actually produce the T-14, or even provide more than minimal external upgrades to the tanks they have been putting into service.

I will admit, I was skeptical when about a decade ago all the Russian Fanbois were salivating at the Armata. Primarily because I tend to pretty much dismiss anything that is praised to highly before it actually enters service. China in particular has a serious problem with that, with proclaiming something they are developing is the "Best ever". Then at some time later quietly shelving it, never to be seen again. And the T-14 and the high praise so many were heaping upon it reminded me exactly of China.

And the T-14 was expected to enter service in 2015. And other than claiming it saw service in Syria, there is no evidence that it has ever entered service anywhere. And even though they promised to deliver the first 100 tanks in 2020, at the end of 2019 they had only delivered 16. Then in 2020 it was announced they had delivered none.

All they have are the prototypes, and their entering production has been held up so many times in the last 9 years that I honestly do not expect them to ever be made.