Is Russia Now the World's Leading Military Power?

[AZrailwhale]

You completely overlook two overriding facts :-

Russian hyper missiles are an estimated decade ahead of US equivalent .
They move in excess of 20 000 mph on a down trajectory and whilst the Kinzhals are in a class of their own, there is also the Avanguard which Moscow has only publicly tested once just to make sure that the Pentagon knows exactly how far inferior their strike force is .
Second .
Russia has been building underground bunkers on a massive scale for many years . The proportion of urban Russians who could use these facililities far exceeds the comparable US figure .

Obviously we all know the hell that would result but presently America could be reduced to dust , whereas the same cannot be said about Russia ..

And US Sheeple have no inkling of this .

Kinzhals didn't do very well against Ukrainian Patriots. They had to make a mass attack to overwhelm the battery to get one or two hits on CIVILIAN targets. Bunkers do you no good when you have to emerge into an irradiated wasteland suffering nuclear winter, so you die slowly from either starvation or radiation poisoning.

 

[Batcat]

Nor would the US.

Which should probably lead us to conclude that neither/none of the nuclear powers will start one. And so we have a sampling of how hostilities will by played out with America's war against Russia, using the Ukraine as America's proxy. Can you imagine a possible conclusion of that way for either side's interests?

I can see big profits for our military-industrial complex. That may be the major driving factor of this conflict for the U.S.

 

[Silver Cat]

actually, a crazy person could start a nuclear war. And we have at least one member here that claims Russia would survive and prosper because they have fallout shelters built.

It's not only about shelters (while shelters are important, too). It's about the credible first strike capability. Which means the capability of the first, non-suicidal, counter-force strike.

 

[Silver Cat]

retard nuclear war would end russia as well as america

It depends...

thinking it wouldnt is what will lead to it

Non thinking about possibility of the nuclear will lead to it, too.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's not only about shelters (while shelters are important, too). It's about the credible first strike capability. Which means the capability of the first, non-suicidal, counter-force strike.

explain in detail how Russia preforms a first strike against US Submarine forces armed with nuclear warheads dumb ass?

 

[Silver Cat]

explain in detail how Russia preforms a first strike against US Submarine forces armed with nuclear warheads dumb ass?

Garmoniya-2, underwater drones, auxiliary recon ships, attacking submarines, satellites, humint and so on. And there are no too many of them in sea ready to launch missiles at any given moment. Also, they have plenty of time to prepare to meet incoming targets.
I do not say, that their first strike will reduce American retaliation strike capabilities to absolute zero. I do say, that their first strike can reduce American retaliation to acceptable (for them) level.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Garmoniya-2, underwater drones, auxiliary recon ships, attacking submarines, satellites, humint and so on. And there are no too many of them in sea ready to launch missiles at any given moment. Also, they have plenty of time to prepare to meet incoming targets.
I do not say, that their first strike will reduce American retaliation strike capabilities to absolute zero. I do say, that their first strike can reduce American retaliation to acceptable (for them) level.

and your ignorance is why we might have a nuclear war

 

[Silver Cat]

and your ignorance is why we might have a nuclear war

It's not my ignorance. It's yours (and not only yours) wishful thinking. What a comforting thought - "we'll all die together"! But, it's simply not true. Nuclear war is survivable and it's winnable. That's why it's not "unthinkable". And if we wanna survive, we must think about unthinkable.

 

[AZrailwhale]

It's not my ignorance. It's yours (and not only yours) wishful thinking. What a comforting thought - "we'll all die together"! But, it's simply not true. Nuclear war is survivable and it's winnable. That's why it's not "unthinkable". And if we wanna survive, we must think about unthinkable.

You have a vivid imagination. If you think "winning" is huddling around a campfire waiting to die from radiation poisoning while starving, more power to you.

 

[Silver Cat]

You have a vivid imagination. If you think "winning" is huddling around a campfire waiting to die from radiation poisoning while starving, more power to you.

Ever been in Las-Vegas? Nice town, isn't it? There were more than nine hundred nuclear bursts nearby, you know.

Talking about the radiation... The USA is a big country, there is a plenty land to live (say nothing about annexation of Canada and/or Mexico).

Yes, the price of victory can be high. But the price of defeat can be much higher.

 

[Mushroom]

The West allowed Russia to take over Syria

"The West" allowed nothing. All that happened over 6 decades ago back when most of the Middle East was aligned with the Soviets.

The only difference here is that the Syrians fell to the Ba'athists so unlike almost all the other nations in the region have not shifted their alliances to the US. In the 1990s, pretty much all the remaining nations in the region moved over to support the US and other Western nations. The only real exception was Syria, who even quickly realigned themselves with Iraq. Ignoring the UN sanctions and even assisting them in avoiding them.

This is not like it is something that just happened in the last decade, the Soviets then Russians have been heavily involved in Syria for decades.

 

[Mushroom]

Russian hyper missiles are an estimated decade ahead of US equivalent .

There is no "equivalent" for the US. That was actually a technology the US looked at decades ago and dismissed.

I always laugh whenever people bring these stupid things up. Like it is some new modern amazing technology that the US is way behind in. Well, guess what, cupcake? Get ready to learn the truth.

The US actually first played with this technology way back in 1958. That was the "High Virgo" system, an air launched ballistic missile that was intended to be carried on the B-58 Hustler.



Then after that came the Bold Orion program, the Skybolt program, and even a freaking program to launch a Minuteman ICBM out the back of a C-5 Galaxy transport.



Holy hell, the US looked at, tested, and ultimately dismissed this entire concept about 5 decades ago. It was decided in the end that wasting money and resources in some kind of air launched ballistic missile was a failed technology and instead put their resources into developing more advanced cruise missiles.

It is not that they are "a decade ahead", in reality they are about 5 decades behind the US. Because that was how long ago the US realized it was an almost total failure of a weapon delivery concept and abandoned it.

 

[Mushroom]

Ever been in Las-Vegas? Nice town, isn't it? There were more than nine hundred nuclear bursts nearby, you know.
View attachment 856591


Talking about the radiation... The USA is a big country, there is a plenty land to live (say nothing about annexation of Canada and/or Mexico).

Yes, the price of victory can be high. But the price of defeat can be much higher.

This is why almost everybody simply laughs at and dismisses your posts.

Nice picture, without any reference as to where it came from. Well, let me let people know who do not.

That came from "Ivan Stepanov", a Russian who admits he has absolutely no training or education in this subject, but made a "war game simulator" based on what a nuclear exchange would be like. And that is an image of one of his simulations where almost all of the Russian missiles were fired at the US missile fields.

In other words, it is from a freaking video game! Taken from the game developers Twitter feed. What next, you gonna use Fallout as an example of what a nuclear war would be like?



And no, there were no "more than nine hundred nuclear bursts" near Las Vegas. The total number is only 100, the last in 1962. The remaining 828 were all underground tests, many of them sub-critical tests intended to test other aspects of a bomb.

 

[Ringo]

In September, the Pentagon procurement chief said that they were aiming to reach 57,000 shells per month in early 2024. They've now downsized that goal to 36,000.
The EU has only delivered 30% of the promised million shells to Ukraine and now admits it is “unlikely” to meet the goal. Lots of people are learning what should have been an obvious lesson, that GDP and industrial capacity are practically unrelated.
It's not 1941 anymore. Deindustrialization is real.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Ever been in Las-Vegas? Nice town, isn't it? There were more than nine hundred nuclear bursts nearby, you know.
View attachment 856591


Talking about the radiation... The USA is a big country, there is a plenty land to live (say nothing about annexation of Canada and/or Mexico).

Yes, the price of victory can be high. But the price of defeat can be much higher.

UNDERGROUND nuclear tests.

 

[Dayton3]

Kinzhals didn't do very well against Ukrainian Patriots. They had to make a mass attack to overwhelm the battery to get one or two hits on CIVILIAN targets. Bunkers do you no good when you have to emerge into an irradiated wasteland suffering nuclear winter, so you die slowly from either starvation or radiation poisoning.

nuclear winter is a myth with no scientific basis

 

[Silver Cat]

And no, there were no "more than nine hundred nuclear bursts" near Las Vegas. The total number is only 100, the last in 1962. The remaining 828 were all underground tests, many of them sub-critical tests intended to test other aspects of a bomb.

Yes. As well as in the real war most of the bursts (at least in the counter-value strike) will be air bursts, with practically no fallouts.

Yes, the Russian counter-force strike of, say, one thousand of warheads will bring much more harm to Montana and Wyoming than one hundred of American bombs caused in Nevada. But anyway, it's definitely far from being apocalyptic.

 

[Silver Cat]

UNDERGROUND nuclear tests.

AIR BURSTS. At least in the third, counter-value, strike. No fallouts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

AIR BURSTS. At least in the third, counter-value, strike. No fallouts.

air burst will eradiate the ground over which it burst and all the debris from the destruction you retard. All that will be sucked into the air and distributed down wind.

 

[Silver Cat]

air burst will eradiate the ground over which it burst and all the debris from the destruction you retard. All that will be sucked into the air and distributed down wind.

But it won't be sucked into the fireball, and, therefore, radiation won't contaminate it.
----------

The character of the radiation received at a given location also varies with the distance from the explosion.[21] Near the point of the explosion, the neutron intensity is greater than the gamma intensity, but with increasing distance the neutron-gamma ratio decreases. Ultimately, the neutron component of the initial radiation becomes negligible in comparison with the gamma component. The range for significant levels of initial radiation does not increase markedly with weapon yield and, as a result, the initial radiation becomes less of a hazard with increasing yield. With larger weapons, above 50 kt (200 TJ), blast and thermal effects are so much greater in importance that prompt radiation effects can be ignored.

[... ]

It was found in early experimentation that normally most of the neutrons released in the cascading chain reaction of the fission bomb are absorbed by the bomb case.

------------
So, if we are not talking about ground bursts or some exotic things like "neutron bombs" or "cobalt bombs" or "strategic gigaton-class torpedoes", and ignore non-calculatable (and, in short-run, unimportant), climate effects, the only important thing is the blast-caused devastation. It's a terrible thing, of course, but nothing really apocalyptic.