That is incorrect. If Russia starts a nuclear war with NATO, Americans are willing to give our lives to ensure that Russia is destroyed.
No. When, previous times the USA were faced the choice between a local defeat and the total annihilation - they've always choose a local defeat.
They may be unwilling to rely on us, but we'll still be there for them.
Bla-bla-bla. It's just an empty rhetoric.
That did not make it OK for Russia to invade Georgia.
No. The Georgian attack against the Russian peacekeepers and Russian citizens (ethnic Ossetians) did.
There is a difference between "Cuba being a Soviet ally" (which we allowed) and "Cuba hosting nuclear missiles" (which we did not allow).
There is a difference between "Ukraine joining NATO" (which is like Cuba being allied with the Soviets) and "Ukraine hosting nuclear missiles" (which so far no one has proposed doing).
Actually, de jure, Cuba as any other independent state has right to host Soviet nuclear missiles. As well, as Turkey, Italy and the UK has right to host American ones. As well as Eastern Europe has right to host significant conventional NATO forces or even American nuclear weapon.
Back in 1962 the USA has a choice:
1) To start a large scale invasion in Cuba before significant Soviet forces were deployed there, and continue strike program of the nuclearisation in Europe. This would lead to collapse of the Warsaw's Pact in 1968 and, likely, collapse of the USSR in 1973.
2) To start a limited military operation (naval quarantaine of Cuba) dodge a bullet, and have a mutual acceptable treaty with the Soviet Union. - it was in our reality, but we can't be sure, that it was the best choice.
3) Do nothing and to be attacked in early 1963 by a sudden Soviet counter-force strike with the further sovietisation or elimination of the United States.
Russia consider militarisation of the Eastern Europe and militarisation of Ukraine as a vital threat. So, they do what is necessary to eliminate this threat.
There was no Serbian genocide against the Kosovars.
Yes, likely. The US attack against Serbia was a violation of the international law. So, what can we do about it?
The US has enough resources to keep Ukraine in the fight indefinitely. Perhaps Russia will run out of resources, but Ukraine will not.
Actually, even with unlimited weapon, fuel and ammo, Ukraine will run out of men in year or two (actually much earlier). I hope, you don't want to send an unlimited stream of American 'volunteers' to Ukraine. What is even more important, Russia, allied with China and India is economically unbeatable.
Our ICBMs are always ready to launch.
But the proper procedures take time. The best result of the drills was 7 minutes.
That is incorrect. There are always a minimum of eight Ohio submarines on patrol. Sometimes there are more than eight.
No.
There are 14 Ohio-class SSBNs. The normal cycle is a 77 day patrol followed by a 35 day replenishment and crew swap, but the Cold War is over and the number of patrols has dropped dramatically.
The current numbers are 18 Pacific patrols and 12 Atlantic patrols per year. Recent patrols have gotten a bit longer - some up to 100 days.
So in the Atlantic, 12 patrols * 77 days per patrol = 924 patrol-days. 12*100= 1200 patrol-days. So 2–3 boats on patrol at a time. And maybe 3–4 in the Pacific simultaneously. And 1–2 may be transiting to patrol and not “on station”.
Pacific submarines can't attack targets in the European part of Russia.
So, if the Russians won the initiative and choose the proper time for their attack, we have only two (or may be even one) SSBNs in the Atlantic. If the Russian Garmoniya system (or their hackers or spies or sattelites) are as good, as think some our backroom boys, and the Russians can more or less precisely reveal their position - we have none of them.
Anyway, two SSBNs means only 48 missiles with, say, 4 RVs each = 192 RVs which are slowing down to 4,8 km/s (and became good target for S-400) at the height, say, twenty kilometers.
No there couldn't. Russia has no ability to track our subs.
Many serious people think that they can have this ability.
Russian missile defenses will not be of any significance. Missile defenses are useless against a large attack.
192 RVs isn't a 'large attack'. ABD of the Moscow region can absorb it.
The President will always have enough time to launch the ICBMs. It only takes 80 seconds to launch the ICBMs even if it is done from out of the blue with no warning.
Source? AFAIK the best result was seven minutes. In 80 seconds they won't even wake up Sleepy Joe.
That is incorrect. If Joe is fatally wounded, Joe will always have the ability to still draw his gun and fatally wound Vlad before Joe dies.
If Joe is wounded in his right arm (or both arms), he won't be able to draw his gun.
Missile defenses are useless against a large attack. Joe will always be able to fatally wound Vlad.
192 RVs isn't a large attack. And ABD isn't the sole part of Vlad's vest. So are EMERCOM and RosReserve. Yes, some few tens of nuclear bursts can hurt significantly, but, definitely, not fatally. In the previous war the Germans destroyed more than two thousands of their cities and towns and killed more than twenty million citizens.
If Vlad shoots Joe, Joe will always choose to shoot back.
No, if Joe prefers to survive rather than kill Vlad. And this is the basic presumption of the deterrence game.
That is incorrect. If Russia is nuking NATO targets, any American president will always respond by nuking Russia.
No.
The U.S. can’t keep ignoring the threat these weapons pose.
www.theatlantic.com
