Mitt Romney Calls on NATO to Prepare for Nuclear Strike from Russia

[Open Bolt]

It's plain physics. RVs are coming to their targets in plasma cocoon.

People have developed anti-radar countermeasures to protect incoming warheads from missile defenses.

No. The US NAVY SSBNs never was able to launch all their missiles in one salvo.

That is incorrect. They are able to do so.

Or, as it was recently - two days.

It is more on the order of 20 seconds between launches.

Sometimes, especially when the politicians want to show their muscles, they do.

SLBM subs on patrol are never used to show muscle.

When you keep your fleet at your side of a pond it means "Oh, I don't want any problems, do whatever you want to do at your side". When you send your fleet towards a bully it means "C'mon, boy, try to fight somebody of your own weight". Back in 1941 the enemy tried.
Forward patrolling areas are aggressive and vulnerable. Backward patrolling areas are pure self-defensive (they are useless for the first counter-force strike) and more or less safe.

Our subs patrol at a distance where they can hit Russian ICBM silos (not cities) with a 15 minute flight time.

They are safe from Russian countermeasures at this distance.

But the Russians don't have such prejudice about usage of their cruise missiles with thermonuclear warheads against American or European cities.

If they do so, the US will retaliate in kind against Russian cities.

No. Higher trajectory - earlier ABD radar will see the target.

ABD is useless against large attacks.

 

[Silver Cat]

People have developed anti-radar countermeasures to protect incoming warheads from missile defenses.

Yes. Decoys. Light decoys (which will be filtered out by the atmosphere) and heavy decoys (which decrease range of the missiles).

That is incorrect. They are able to do so.

They never did it.

It is more on the order of 20 seconds between launches.



SLBM subs on patrol are never used to show muscle.

The whole conception of deterrence is based on the muscle showing.

Our subs patrol at a distance where they can hit Russian ICBM silos (not cities) with a 15 minute flight time.

Sometimes (when they play Deterrence Type I) - yes. Sometimes (when they play Deterrence Type II) - no.
Sometimes (quite often) there are mid-patrol visits in British or Norwegian ports.

They are safe from Russian countermeasures at this distance.

Sometimes - yes. Sometimes (quite often even for backward patrolling areas) - no.

If they do so, the US will retaliate in kind against Russian cities.

No. US NAVY don't have submarine-launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads anymore. That the problem.

ABD is useless against large attacks.

Who said, that the retaliation strike will be "large"? Especially if the Russian first counter-force strike is effective?

 

[Open Bolt]

Yes. Decoys. Light decoys (which will be filtered out by the atmosphere) and heavy decoys (which decrease range of the missiles).

People have come up with various ways of interfering with radar tracking too. At a minimum, chaff can be dispensed.

They never did it.

Says who? Is there some list of every SLBM test that has ever been carried out?

And if so, it would only be because they could be confident of their ability without conducting such a test.

The whole conception of deterrence is based on the muscle showing.

Not with SLBMs. The point of SLBMs is to stay hidden until it is time to destroy the world.

Sometimes (when they play Deterrence Type I) - yes. Sometimes (when they play Deterrence Type II) - no.

Deterrence Type II is done from a distance where our missiles take 15 minutes to reach their targets.

Deterrence Type I is done from much further away than that.

Sometimes (quite often) there are mid-patrol visits in British or Norwegian ports.
View attachment 679212

Such port calls are significant departures from their patrol routes.

Sometimes - yes. Sometimes (quite often even for backward patrolling areas) - no.

That is incorrect. Our SLBM subs always stay a safe distance from countermeasures.

No. US NAVY don't have submarine-launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads anymore. That the problem.

That is no problem at all, and will not prevent us from retaliating in kind against Russia. We have many ways of launching nukes.

I do support building new stealth sea-launched cruise missiles, but not because we need them to retaliate against Russia. Rather, because it would add another kind of threat to complicate their defense efforts.

Who said, that the retaliation strike will be "large"?

Massive counterforce strikes are large by definition.

Especially if the Russian first counter-force strike is effective?

A Russian counterforce strike against us will not harm our deployed subs. And it will not harm our ICBMs, which will be launched a few seconds after radar confirms an incoming attack.