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

[Silver Cat]

Actually the U.S. has a near complete First Strike Capability on the Russians.

No. In almost any possible scenario the Russians can retaliate and their retaliation strike will kill directly more than 30 million of the Americans.

 

[Open Bolt]

Can we win WWIII now? I very doubt.

Nuclear war is never about winning. It is only about preventing the enemy from winning.

The answer is that right now we can do nothing. We have no ability to fight and win a Local Nuclear War,

We can do plenty. Our B2 bombers can nuke as many targets as necessary to prevent Russia from winning a local nuclear war.

and we have no the Credible First Strike Capability (capability of decreasing the Russian potentional retaliation strike to 'acceptable' levels). So, the choice will be simple:
a) give up Ukraine, and may be, Eastern Europe;
b) commite murder-suicide.
Actually it's not a choice, and the Russians know it.

528 air-launched cruise missiles, 800 ICBM warheads and 1920 SLBM warheads are plenty.

IMO, use B2s and the ALCMs for the nuclear counterforce strike and hold the ICBMs and SLBMs in reserve.

If Russia tries to take out our ICBMs, launch them on warning, targeting Russia's conventional military and any nuclear forces left over after the strike by the ALCMs and B2s.

Use the SLBMs to target Russian cities (one Russian city in retaliation for one NATO city).

What we really need to do now - is to save US economy, improve nuclear forces and wait for the better opportunity.

If Russia nukes any NATO targets, what the US needs to do is nuke Russian targets in retaliation.

No. In almost any possible scenario the Russians can retaliate and their retaliation strike will kill directly more than 30 million of the Americans.

If Russia targets American cities (or any cities of our NATO allies), America will target Russian cities.

 

[gipper]

After reading the article and the actual quote GP is once again mischaracterizing what was said and the context in which it was said.



As much as I dislike Mitt this is pretty accurate and he's not telling Europe a Nuclear strike is coming.

He says we should have a devastating response for Russia should they use nukes. Great news! Mass murder millions of Russians. He is suggesting using nukes to destroy Russia right?

Uh oh…wouldn’t Russia launch all their nukes if that happened?

Mitt like many Americans, particularly the neocons on this board, hasn’t thought this through.

 

[Open Bolt]

He says we should have a devastating response for Russia should they use nukes. Great news! Mass murder millions of Russians. He is suggesting using nukes to destroy Russia right?
Uh oh…wouldn’t Russia launch all their nukes if that happened?
Mitt like many Americans, particularly the neocons on this board, hasn’t thought this through.

I doubt that he was contemplating using nukes against Russia unless Russia nukes a NATO country first. By "devastating response" he probably means crushing sanctions from the entire world (including from China).

But we do have enough nukes to destroy Russia if there is a nuclear war between Russia and NATO.

Exterminating the Russian people in a nuclear war would hardly be any kind of murder.

 

[ESay]

Poland did.

No, they didn't. They sent only spare parts.

 

[gipper]

I doubt that he was contemplating using nukes against Russia unless Russia nukes a NATO country first. By "devastating response" he probably means crushing sanctions from the entire world (including from China).

But we do have enough nukes to destroy Russia if there is a nuclear war between Russia and NATO.

Exterminating the Russian people in a nuclear war would hardly be any kind of murder.

Lol. The mass murdering baby killer raises his ugly head.

 

[Open Bolt]

Lol. The mass murdering baby killer raises his ugly head.

Quit your pathetic whining. Those Japanese war criminals got exactly what they deserved. And no. Justice is not murder in any way whatsoever.

 

[gipper]

Quit your pathetic whining. Those Japanese war criminals got exactly what they deserved. And no. Justice is not murder in any way whatsoever.

Why do you like killing babies? Are you a psychopath or sociopath?

 

[Open Bolt]

Why do you like killing babies? Are you a psychopath or sociopath?

What I like is justice. Your nasty war criminals got exactly what they deserved.

 

[gipper]

What I like is justice. Your nasty war criminals got exactly what they deserved.

Yeah all those women and children deserved to die!

Kill baby kill!!!

 

[Open Bolt]

Yeah all those women and children deserved to die!
Kill baby kill!!!

They sure did. The entire lot of them were war criminals.

The bombing of Hiroshima was perfect. But it is truly a shame that the second atomic bomb was not dropped on Kyoto. That would have been the perfect kick in the balls to end the war on.

Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[wamose]

If the neucs fly, we will all need to learn Chinese because those sneaky, communist dog eaters will stay on the sideline and let their two biggest rivals destroy themselves, then move in and pick up the pieces. I don't understand what Romney means about getting ready for a nuclear confrontation. I thought that automatically came with the territory of leadership. Or maybe he's talking about reviving the hide under your desk method they used to teach in elementary schools. Romney has turned into an idiot.

 

[Dayton3]

I doubt that he was contemplating using nukes against Russia unless Russia nukes a NATO country first. By "devastating response" he probably means crushing sanctions from the entire world (including from China).

But we do have enough nukes to destroy Russia if there is a nuclear war between Russia and NATO.

Exterminating the Russian people in a nuclear war would hardly be any kind of murder.

I wouldn't advocate it though.

 

[Silver Cat]

Nuclear war is never about winning. It is only about preventing the enemy from winning.

You see... To be effective, deterrence must be credible. And to be credible - the strategy must be (at least theoretically) - winnable.

We can do plenty. Our B2 bombers can nuke as many targets as necessary to prevent Russia from winning a local nuclear war.

In fact - no. There are only 322 B61-77 and B83-1 bombs and only 100 of them are deployed at Whiteman AFB (for B-2A) plus 230 B61-3 with only 100 of them deployed in Europe (for F-15, F-16). To fight even a local frontline operation (offence 200x600 km) by Russian FMs you need at least 500-600 nukes. (Americans don't have realistic plans to win such an operation at all). Say nothing about vulnerability of the heavy bombers (as well as F-15 and F-16) over a modern battlefield.

528 air-launched cruise missiles, 800 ICBM warheads and 1920 SLBM warheads are plenty.

No, if most of them destroyed before launch, most of remained - intercepted by ABD, civil defense saved most of population and allies (and robbered rich neighbors) recuperated their economy.

IMO, use B2s and the ALCMs for the nuclear counterforce strike and hold the ICBMs and SLBMs in reserve.

B2s are too vulnerable for taking party in the first strike and ALCMs are too slow and vulnerable, too.

If Russia tries to take out our ICBMs, launch them on warning, targeting Russia's conventional military and any nuclear forces left over after the strike by the ALCMs and B2s.

What if there are not enough time for 'launch on warning'? Russian missiles are fast, SBIRS is far from being complete (or even be really effective). And, obviously, without airborn alert, bombers (both B-2s and B-52s) will be destroyed on their bases.

Use the SLBMs to target Russian cities (one Russian city in retaliation for one NATO city).

The problem is that Russia is a big country and have enough of land to evacuate their population from their cities and even population remaining in the cities has plenty of shelters. One city for one city may mean one thousand of the Russians for one million (or even more) of the Americans. And, after their first counter-force strike they may prevail in the number of nukes and exchange, say, one almost empty Russian city for five or ten American still not evacuated (because of ineffectiveness of FEMA) cities.

If Russia nukes any NATO targets, what the US needs to do is nuke Russian targets in retaliation.

I wish it was that simple. But, in our reality things may become really complicated.

 

[Open Bolt]

You see... To be effective, deterrence must be credible. And to be credible - the strategy must be (at least theoretically) - winnable.

There is no way to win a nuclear war. What you do in a nuclear war is ensure that the other side dies.

In fact - no. There are only 322 B61-77 and B83-1 bombs and only 100 of them are deployed at Whiteman AFB (for B-2A)

It would not take us more than a few days to have 256 of those bombs loaded on B2 bombers and in the air. The rest of those 322 bombs would be waiting for the B2s to fly back and reload.

plus 230 B61-3

Those are for the Europeans to use as they see fit. We'd be using our strategic nukes.

Note that we will soon be producing 480 new B61-12s for the Europeans to use. The first ones have already started rolling off the assembly line.

with only 100 of them deployed in Europe (for F-15, F-16).

It would only take a few days for us to get all 230 of them in European hands.

To fight even a local frontline operation (offence 200x600 km) by Russian FMs you need at least 500-600 nukes. (Americans don't have realistic plans to win such an operation at all).

Our B2s would not be dropping bombs on battlefield formations. The B2s would would be taking out strategic targets inside Russia.

Perhaps the Europeans would chose to use their 230 B61-3s on the battlefield. A B61-3 has a 170 kiloton clean yield (all fusion except for a small primary). 230 of them could put a sizable dent in any Russian army that was invading NATO territory.

Say nothing about vulnerability of the heavy bombers (as well as F-15 and F-16) over a modern battlefield.

No such vulnerability.

No, if most of them destroyed before launch,

Only our bombers could be destroyed thusly, and only if Russia launched a massive attack on us from out of the blue before nuking anyone else, which is an entirely different situation from Russia fighting a limited nuclear war in Europe.

If Russia launched a massive nuclear strike on the US from out of the blue, we would launch all of our ICBMs at Russia, and four of our Ohio subs would launch all of their SLBMs at Russia.

Another four Ohio subs would remain to pick off Russian cities in retaliation for any NATO cities that were destroyed.

most of remained - intercepted by ABD,

Russia's missile defenses will be helpless against American missiles and would be largely wiped out by our massive counterforce strike.

civil defense saved most of population and allies (and robbered rich neighbors) recuperated their economy.

Civil defense is a pipe dream. Most of their civilians will remain in cities and will be killed if we nuke those cities.

B2s are too vulnerable for taking party in the first strike and ALCMs are too slow and vulnerable, too.

No such vulnerabilities.

A little slow compared to an ICBM, yes. But still able to destroy Russian targets.

What if there are not enough time for 'launch on warning'? Russian missiles are fast,

There is ample time for launch on warning. Our ICBMs are on hair trigger alert.

SBIRS is far from being complete (or even be really effective).

Our missile detection satellites are complete and effective.

And, obviously, without airborn alert, bombers (both B-2s and B-52s) will be destroyed on their bases.

Yes, if Russia launched a massive nuclear attack on the US from out of the blue without any warning, our bombers would be destroyed.

But that would take us far out of the realm of the scenario of a local nuclear war in Europe. And Russia would be clobbered with a massive counterforce strike from the US.

The problem is that Russia is a big country and have enough of land to evacuate their population from their cities and even population remaining in the cities has plenty of shelters. One city for one city may mean one thousand of the Russians for one million (or even more) of the Americans.

Civil defense is a pipe dream. But even if anyone did manage to survive our direct attack, the radiation and nuclear winter would still get them.

And, after their first counter-force strike they may prevail in the number of nukes and exchange, say, one almost empty Russian city for five or ten American still not evacuated (because of ineffectiveness of FEMA) cities.

Their counterforce strike will be matched by our own massive counterforce strike.

After that, we will still have four Ohio subs left to pick off Russian cities.

I wish it was that simple. But, in our reality things may become really complicated.

It is that simple. If Russia nukes NATO, we will nuke Russia.

 

[Silver Cat]

There is no way to win a nuclear war. What you do in a nuclear war is ensure that the other side dies.

If you are alive and your enemy is dead - it is usually considered as 'victory'. The price of the victory may be high, of course, but it may worth it. In the previous war Russia had lost thirty, may be even forty millions citizens but German suggested "alternative" (genocide) was much worse.

It would not take us more than a few days to have 256 of those bombs loaded on B2 bombers and in the air. The rest of those 322 bombs would be waiting for the B2s to fly back and reload.

Anyway, its not enough even to take Voronezh.

Those are for the Europeans to use as they see fit. We'd be using our strategic nukes.

To use strategic nukes to achieve tactical objectives? Funny. The Russians will take Berlin and Paris while you are nuking railroad stations in Zalupinsk and Zajopinsk.

Note that we will soon be producing 480 new B61-12s for the Europeans to use. The first ones have already started rolling off the assembly line.

Yes, but it will be insufficient too.

It would only take a few days for us to get all 230 of them in European hands.

You need thousands of low-yield nukes to fight a Limited Nuclear War.

Our B2s would not be dropping bombs on battlefield formations. The B2s would would be taking out strategic targets inside Russia.

They won't be able even to came close to the most of those 'strategic targets'. They are slow, big, and pretty visible by a proper air defense.

Perhaps the Europeans would chose to use their 230 B61-3s on the battlefield. A B61-3 has a 170 kiloton clean yield (all fusion except for a small primary). 230 of them could put a sizable dent in any Russian army that was invading NATO territory.

How many F-16 will successfully enter in Russia-controlled airspace? And how many of them will be able really attack the Russian army? May be, they will eliminate few Russian brigades (may be not), but other will literally smash European armies, because the Russians have more than 5000 of tactical nukes (and proper delivery systems for them).
Actually, Trident missiles with W76-2 8 kt REs found be such a 'tactical' weapon, but there are only 25 of them totally - few on each Ohio.

No such vulnerability.

Of course they are. They are big, slow and pretty visible (at least in the situation of a first days of war).

Only our bombers could be destroyed thusly, and only if Russia launched a massive attack on us from out of the blue before nuking anyone else, which is an entirely different situation from Russia fighting a limited nuclear war in Europe.

Attacking strategic targets inside Russia itself is not a limited nuclear war in Europe scanario, too.

If Russia launched a massive nuclear strike on the US from out of the blue, we would launch all of our ICBMs at Russia, and four of our Ohio subs would launch all of their SLBMs at Russia.

What if all ICBMs and some Ohio subs are already destroyed by the Russian counter-force strike?

Another four Ohio subs would remain to pick off Russian cities in retaliation for any NATO cities that were destroyed.

Are you sure they will remain? It will take hours or even days to make them able attack cities in the European part of Russia, and the Russians will a) try to kill them before they are ready to attack important targets b) evacuate and shelter their cities.

Russia's missile defenses will be helpless against American missiles and would be largely wiped out by our massive counterforce strike.

Very unlikely.

Civil defense is a pipe dream. Most of their civilians will remain in cities and will be killed if we nuke those cities.

There was a great flood in Irkutsk region back in 2019. The half of the region population was evacuated by EMERCOM in hours, and the number of casualties was really insignificant.

No such vulnerabilities.

A little slow compared to an ICBM, yes. But still able to destroy Russian targets.

They are able to destroy Russian targest only under very specific circumstances.

There is ample time for launch on warning. Our ICBMs are on hair trigger alert.

No. Launch on warning take at least 7-10 minutes. Russian TOF (supressed ballistic trajectory, launch from Canadian sector of Arctic) will take less than 7 minutes.

Our missile detection satellites are complete and effective.

IMEWS is almost degraded, SBIRS-high wasn't completed, SBIRS-low became STSS and deactivated at March, 8 this year. So, all what the US have to detect launch of the Russian missiles now are few SBIRS-High sats, which don't control the whole globe and, sometimes, give false-positive alerts.

Yes, if Russia launched a massive nuclear attack on the US from out of the blue without any warning, our bombers would be destroyed.

But that would take us far out of the realm of the scenario of a local nuclear war in Europe. And Russia would be clobbered with a massive counterforce strike from the US.

There will be no 'massive counterforce strike from the US' if most of the US nuclear arsenal is already destroyed. What is even more important - if the Russians are well prepared, their mobile complexes are already in forests on their routes. You just don't know their positions to attack them all.

Civil defense is a pipe dream. But even if anyone did manage to survive our direct attack, the radiation and nuclear winter would still get them.

Do you really want to scary the Russians with a winter? The winter doesn't kill by itself. Unpreparedness does.

Their counterforce strike will be matched by our own massive counterforce strike.

After that, we will still have four Ohio subs left to pick off Russian cities.



It is that simple. If Russia nukes NATO, we will nuke Russia.

May be. May be not. May be if Russia nukes NATO the USA will face a simple choice between losing the face and losing the life (may be with the terrible, but still acceptable loses for the Russians).

 

[Open Bolt]

If you are alive and your enemy is dead - it is usually considered as 'victory'. The price of the victory may be high, of course, but it may worth it. In the previous war Russia had lost thirty, may be even forty millions citizens but German suggested "alternative" (genocide) was much worse.

In a nuclear war, you understand that your side is going to die too, but you always make sure that other side also dies.

Anyway, its not enough even to take Voronezh.

322 strategic bombs is more than enough to cripple the Russian military and end their invasion of NATO countries.

To use strategic nukes to achieve tactical objectives? Funny. The Russians will take Berlin and Paris while you are nuking railroad stations in Zalupinsk and Zajopinsk.

No. Our B2s would deliver their strategic nukes to strategic targets. But those strategic targets will be ones that cripple Russia's ability to wage war against Europe.

Yes, but it will be insufficient too.

The new bombs will work out just fine when they are built. 480 high-precision nukes with 50 kiloton yields will be more than sufficient to wreck the Russian military.

You need thousands of low-yield nukes to fight a Limited Nuclear War.

I disagree. A smaller number of larger ones will work just fine.

They won't be able even to came close to the most of those 'strategic targets'. They are slow, big, and pretty visible by a proper air defense.

Russia will not be able to track our B2 bombers. The bombers will be skimming the ground at high speed.

How many F-16 will successfully enter in Russia-controlled airspace?

If the Europeans choose to use their nukes on the battlefield, the fighter jets will not have to penetrate Russian airspace.

And how many of them will be able really attack the Russian army? May be, they will eliminate few Russian brigades (may be not), but other will literally smash European armies, because the Russians have more than 5000 of tactical nukes (and proper delivery systems for them).

I figured this scenario presumes that European armies were already smashed by Russian nukes.

If Russia is not nuking NATO, then NATO will not nuke Russia.

If Russia is already nuking NATO, then the European armies have already been destroyed, and the only thing left to do is respond in kind.

Of course they are. They are big, slow and pretty visible (at least in the situation of a first days of war).

Russia will not be able to track our B2 bombers. The bombers will be skimming the ground at high speed.

Attacking strategic targets inside Russia itself is not a limited nuclear war in Europe scanario, too.

We would probably respond to a limited nuclear war by attacking limited targets designed to cripple Russia's ability to wage that limited nuclear war. It wouldn't be a massive counterforce strike.

Although, I guess we could decide to open with a massive counterforce strike. It would be an interesting option.

Either way, our response to a limited nuclear war in Europe would be at least some attacks in Russia.

What if all ICBMs and some Ohio subs are already destroyed by the Russian counter-force strike?

Russia has no ability to do either. Our ICBMs will be launched if Russia tries to attack them. Russia has no ability to find our submarines.

Are you sure they will remain?

Yes.

It will take hours or even days to make them able attack cities in the European part of Russia, and the Russians will a) try to kill them before they are ready to attack important targets

Russia has no ability to find our submarines.

b) evacuate and shelter their cities.

Russia has no ability to do that. Civil defense is a pipe dream.

Very unlikely.

That is incorrect. Missile defense is useless against a large nuclear attack. And if we launch a massive counterforce strike, that will take out their ABM silos.

There was a great flood in Irkutsk region back in 2019. The half of the region population was evacuated by EMERCOM in hours, and the number of casualties was really insignificant.

Hiding the entire population of Russia from nuclear attack is a much more difficult proposition.

They are able to destroy Russian targets only under very specific circumstances.

Our air-launched cruise missiles will destroy any Russian target that they are launched at.

No. Launch on warning take at least 7-10 minutes. Russian TOF (supressed ballistic trajectory, launch from Canadian sector of Arctic) will take less than 7 minutes.

That is incorrect. Launch on warning will take 80 seconds to carry out. If we start getting ready to launch as soon as we detect the Russian attack, we can cut that to 20 seconds.

IMEWS is almost degraded, SBIRS-high wasn't completed, SBIRS-low became STSS and deactivated at March, 8 this year. So, all what the US have to detect launch of the Russian missiles now are few SBIRS-High sats, which don't control the whole globe and, sometimes, give false-positive alerts.

SBIRS-high is complete. It only requires 4 satellites to cover everywhere. We've launched 5, with number 6 coming later this year.

There will be no 'massive counterforce strike from the US' if most of the US nuclear arsenal is already destroyed.

Russia doesn't have the ability to do that. Russia cannot find our submarines. Our ICBMs will be launched if Russia tries to attack them.

What is even more important - if the Russians are well prepared, their mobile complexes are already in forests on their routes. You just don't know their positions to attack them all.

We'll get what we can.

Do you really want to scary the Russians with a winter? The winter doesn't kill by itself. Unpreparedness does.

If a large number of American and Russian cities are burned, the nuclear winter will mean a minimum of several years with no growing season. Maybe even decades. How many years worth of food for everyone does Russia have stored?

May be. May be not.

No maybe.

If Russia nukes NATO, the US will nuke Russia.

May be if Russia nukes NATO the USA will face a simple choice between losing the face and losing the life (may be with the terrible, but still acceptable loses for the Russians).

Death is the acceptable option when faced with such a choice. America will always nuke Russia back.

 

[Silver Cat]

In a nuclear war, you understand that your side is going to die too, but you always make sure that other side also dies.

But there could be situations when you can't be sure, that other side will die, too. Or even you can be sure that too many of them will survive.

322 strategic bombs is more than enough to cripple the Russian military and end their invasion of NATO countries.

No.

No. Our B2s would deliver their strategic nukes to strategic targets. But those strategic targets will be ones that cripple Russia's ability to wage war against Europe.

What targets exactly? Bridges? Railroad stations? Fuel depots?

The new bombs will work out just fine when they are built. 480 high-precision nukes with 50 kiloton yields will be more than sufficient to wreck the Russian military.



I disagree. A smaller number of larger ones will work just fine.

Go to Pentagon and explain it there. I'm sure, they will be happy to listen your suggestions.

Russia will not be able to track our B2 bombers. The bombers will be skimming the ground at high speed.

No. It was practically suicidal mode even back in 80-s. Now it's totally suicidal. The Russians are ready to meet high-speed low-attitude attack of cruise missiles and B-2A is much larger than a cruise missile.

If the Europeans choose to use their nukes on the battlefield, the fighter jets will not have to penetrate Russian airspace.

The fighters will have to penetrate Russia-controlled airspace over the battlefield.

I figured this scenario presumes that European armies were already smashed by Russian nukes.

If Russia is not nuking NATO, then NATO will not nuke Russia.

Ok. Let's play the game. You are the POTUS, Joe Biden. There is a tension situation in Ukraine. Your strategy is a sophisticated combination of military, diplomatic and economical measures that suppose to stop the Russians and force them to sign a peace on the terms acceptable for the USA. But your European 'allies' sabotage your orders. Some of them don't want to join your sanctions, another (like the UK) are more military agressive than it is necessary. Eventually, Boris (without American order or even permission) officially declares war to Russia, and conventionally attacks, say, their Baltic Fleet, and try to increase readiness of the British nuclear fleet - to send other two Vanguards into the open sea.
Then, Russia say - Ok, à la guerre comme à la guerre (na voine kak na voine), nuke British Naval Base Clyde (with two Vanguards) and kill the last remaining in the sea Vanguard. Britain became practically non-nuclear. Russia suggest peace, neutral status of the UK and it's denuclearisation (may be under control of both American and Russian experts). Boris Johnson demands from the USA further escalation and, may be, even an all-out nuclear war between the USA and Russia.
So, your choice is pretty simple:
1) Escalate and commit murder-suicide.
2) Say: 'It's not our fault, it's yours' and try to de-escalate the situation without direct nuclear attack against Russia.

Although, I guess we could decide to open with a massive counterforce strike. It would be an interesting option.

You can't do it if the Russians are ready.

Russia has no ability to do either. Our ICBMs will be launched if Russia tries to attack them. Russia has no ability to find our submarines.

Who knows? The world's ocean became more and more transparent with the new technologies.

Russia has no ability to do that. Civil defense is a pipe dream.

No, if there are more than 300000 of personnel in your EMERCOM and your civilians are well trained.

Hiding the entire population of Russia from nuclear attack is a much more difficult proposition.

Not really. In the previous war they did evacuate half of their industry from European part of the USSR into Siberia.

Our air-launched cruise missiles will destroy any Russian target that they are launched at.

If not intercepted by their fighters and air-defense.

That is incorrect. Launch on warning will take 80 seconds to carry out. If we start getting ready to launch as soon as we detect the Russian attack, we can cut that to 20 seconds.

If it was so - we all were already dead. The IR-blips and false-positive alerts are not rare.

SBIRS-high is complete. It only requires 4 satellites to cover everywhere. We've launched 5, with number 6 coming later this year.

First - SBIRS-high is not sufficient, and never was supposed to be the only element of detection of missile launches (that's why SBIRS-Low was necessary). What is even more important it was supposed to consist of SBIRS-GEO and SBIRS-HEO sats. The geosynchronous sats are quite bad in the detection of starts in Arctic and Antarctic zones (because of the simple geometrical reasons) especially if we are talking about SBT-launches. And there are only two SBIRS-HEO (High Elliptical Orbits) sats, supposed to control Arctic. Two HEO satellites are not sufficient to control Arctic. The Russians can use a 'window' to launch their attack.

If a large number of American and Russian cities are burned, the nuclear winter will mean a minimum of several years with no growing season. Maybe even decades. How many years worth of food for everyone does Russia have stored?

Russia have stored food for three years, they have plenty of weapon to kill their rich and weak neighbours (like EU) and take their food and they have plenty of gas and oils for hunting, fishing, growing food in greenhouses and even produce food directly from oil. Yes, it likely will be another 'Time of Troubles' (1601-1603 'years without summer', chaos and anarchy until 1614) when famine and European invaders killed third part of the whole Russian population, but Russia itself survived and even became much stronger (two Tzars later the Great Duchy of Moscow became Russian Empire).

Death is the acceptable option when faced with such a choice. America will always nuke Russia back.

Even if it was neither Russian nor American fault? Do you really want to be a hostage of the Brits and Ukrainians?

 

[AZrailwhale]

I can't see it. A 3rd party run ends him politically.

He's over seventy years old. He's already ended politically.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

He's over seventy years old. He's already ended politically.

McConnell and Pelosi are 80 and 82 respectively.

Romney is in excellent shape and may well serve into his mid 80's or longer in some elected capacity if he can keep getting elected.