What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,429
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
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.



Anyway, its not enough even to take Voronezh.



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.



Yes, but it will be insufficient too.


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


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.



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.


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


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


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


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.


Very unlikely.

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.


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


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.




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.




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.


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


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).
Based upon the logistics abilities of Russian forces unveiled during the invasion of Ukraine, the only way Russian forces could reach Paris or Berlin would be on stolen horses or on foot. That's assuming they could loot enough food to not starve on the way
 

Open Bolt

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
1,788
Reaction score
647
Points
163
Location
Michigan
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.
In an all-out nuclear war, Russia will die along with everyone else.


I disagree. I think hundreds of strategic nukes can do massive damage to the Russian military.


What targets exactly? Bridges? Railroad stations? Fuel depots?
How about targeting large military bases in Russia?


Go to Pentagon and explain it there. I'm sure, they will be happy to listen your suggestions.
The Pentagon already knows that their nukes can wreck the Russian military.


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
There is very little chance that Russia can do much to counter missiles that are small, fast, and fly below radar.


and B-2A is much larger than a cruise missile.
As far as radar is concerned, B2s are smaller than cruise missiles.


The fighters will have to penetrate Russia-controlled airspace over the battlefield.
Russia will not control the airspace over the battlefield.


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.
My strategy would be to bleed Russia to death with endless war and endless sanctions. I suspect that that is Joe Biden's strategy as well.

It is unlikely that the west will angle towards any peace arrangement. Better to keep bleeding Russia with never-ending war until they are no longer a significant power.


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.
Russia has no ability to find and attack British submarines at sea.

But I would respond to a Russian nuclear attack against the UK by first uploading our hedge stockpile so that we had 800 ICBM warheads, 1920 SLBM warheads (all at sea), 528 ALCMs, and 256 bombs, all deployed and ready to go.

The moment that that was done, I'd immediately launch a massive counterforce strike against Russia.


You can't do it if the Russians are ready.
All we need to do in order to launch a counterforce strike is launch missiles and target them at Russia's nuclear sites.


Who knows? The world's ocean became more and more transparent with the new technologies.
Russia has no ability to track our submarines. Or British submarines. Or French submarines.


Not really. In the previous war they did evacuate half of their industry from European part of the USSR into Siberia.
That would pose no problem. We'd just target the new locations in Siberia.


If not intercepted by their fighters and air-defense.
Russia will not be able to intercept our air-launched cruise missiles.


If it was so - we all were already dead. The IR-blips and false-positive alerts are not rare.
Infrared readings showing a massive launch of many missiles are rare. I'm not sure if it has ever happened.

Infrared readings of a massive launch being backed up with radar detection of incoming warheads has never happened.


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).
SBIRS-low was intended to discriminate between real warheads and decoys. It is not necessary to detect launches.

SBIRS-high is sufficient for detecting launches as soon as they happen.


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.
There are five (soon to be six) SBIRS-GEO satellites.

There are four SBIRS-HEO satellites. Number three was launched in 2014. Number four was launched in 2017.


Russia have stored food for three years,
They'll need it. There will be at least three years with no growing season.


they have plenty of weapon to kill their rich and weak neighbours (like EU) and take their food
There won't be any rich neighbors to steal food from after a large nuclear war. Russia will have what they have in their underground bunkers, and that's it.

And that's assuming those underground bunkers are not themselves destroyed. We do have bunker buster munitions.


and they have plenty of gas and oils for hunting, fishing, growing food in greenhouses and even produce food directly from oil.
Not after a nuclear war they won't.


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).
Don't forget the 500 years of radiation. And the destruction of the ozone layer for who knows how long.


Even if it was neither Russian nor American fault? Do you really want to be a hostage of the Brits and Ukrainians?
If Russia uses nuclear weapons when no one has used nuclear weapons against them, Russia will be entirely at fault.
 
Last edited:

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
624
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
I disagree. I think hundreds of strategic nukes can do massive damage to the Russian military.
May be, 'massive', but definitely not 'total'.
How about targeting large military bases in Russia?
First of all, there are roughly 5000 military bases in Russia. Second, many of them are inside cities, so, that strike will be counter-value, too. Third - most of their forces will leave those bases and dispers before the strike.

As far as radar is concerned, B2s are smaller than cruise missiles.
No, if we are talking about L-band radars too.

Russia will not control the airspace over the battlefield.
You really think so? Think one more time.

My strategy would be to bleed Russia to death with endless war and endless sanctions. I suspect that that is Joe Biden's strategy as well.

It is unlikely that the west will angle towards any peace arrangement. Better to keep bleeding Russia with never-ending war until they are no longer a significant power.
You see, Russia allied with China and India is economically unbeatable (if we are talking about traditional understanding of the attrition war).


Russia has no ability to find and attack British submarines at sea.
Really? Who said it?

But I would respond to a Russian nuclear attack against the UK by first uploading our hedge stockpile so that we had 800 ICBM warheads, 1920 SLBM warheads (all at sea), 528 ALCMs, and 256 bombs, all deployed and ready to go.

The moment that that was done, I'd immediately launch a massive counterforce strike against Russia.

You see, there are two little problems - you forget to protect American citizens and you forget that when you start your preparations, the Russians will start theirs and, highly likely, they'll attack first (if they believe that you are really determined to die for the Britons).
All we need to do in order to launch a counterforce strike is launch missiles and target them at Russia's nuclear sites.
I wish it was true. In fact, there is a hell of work to done.
Russia has no ability to track our submarines. Or British submarines. Or French submarines.
Really? They said it?
That would pose no problem. We'd just target the new locations in Siberia.
It's not that simple, especially without sattelites and recon planes.
Russia will not be able to intercept our air-launched cruise missiles.

Of course they are. ALCMs are slow and vulnerable.
Infrared readings showing a massive launch of many missiles are rare. I'm not sure if it has ever happened.
It has happened.
Infrared readings of a massive launch being backed up with radar detection of incoming warheads has never happened.
If the Russians launched their missiles at SBT - you'll have radar confirmation 2-3 minutes before they start to burst at ICBMs positions.

SBIRS-low was intended to discriminate between real warheads and decoys. It is not necessary to detect launches.

SBIRS-high is sufficient for detecting launches as soon as they happen.



There are five (soon to be six) SBIRS-GEO satellites.

There are four SBIRS-HEO satellites. Number three was launched in 2014. Number four was launched in 2017.
There is a great difference between terms 'launched' and 'operational' sattelites.

They'll need it. There will be at least three years with no growing season.
Actually, nobody knows for sure. May be, there will be global warming because of great amount of CO_2 and H_2O vaporized in the atmosphere. Greenhouse effect, you know.

There won't be any rich neighbors to steal food from after a large nuclear war. Russia will have what they have in their underground bunkers, and that's it.
Why? There is Ukraine nearby, China, India, EU. Of course, they'll be happy to share their food (and other supplies) with Russia after the first rounds of the nuclear exchange.

And that's assuming those underground bunkers are not themselves destroyed. We do have bunker buster munitions.



Not after a nuclear war they won't.



Don't forget the 500 years of radiation. And the destruction of the ozone layer for who knows how long.
Bla-bla-bla.
Have you ever been to Las Vegas? There is a nice place 65 miles Northwest from it.
Over 1,000 nuclear bursts and the city is still alive.


If Russia uses nuclear weapons when no one has used nuclear weapons against them, Russia will be entirely at fault.
No. If the UK declared war to Russia - it is entirely British fault.
 

Open Bolt

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
1,788
Reaction score
647
Points
163
Location
Michigan
First of all, there are roughly 5000 military bases in Russia. Second, many of them are inside cities, so, that strike will be counter-value, too. Third - most of their forces will leave those bases and dispers before the strike.
Minor bases inside cities are not targets. The targets are significant bases that are large and located outside cities.

Bases cannot simply be evacuated to different locations to dodge nuclear attacks.


No, if we are talking about L-band radars too.
There are two problems with the use of low frequency radar. The first problem is that low-frequency radar is too imprecise to be used for weapon tracking. All it can do is show the general location of a plane.

The second problem is that low-frequency radar doesn't work against stealth bombers. The anti-stealth ability only works against stealth fighters.

There are experts who believe that in the future Russia will develop the ability to detect and destroy stealth bombers before they can get close enough to a target to drop their bombs. But this capability still lies in the future. And when that day comes, it will be easily countered by having stealth bombers carry cruise missiles instead of dropping bombs.


You really think so? Think one more time.
I really think so.


You see, Russia allied with China and India is economically unbeatable (if we are talking about traditional understanding of the attrition war).
I doubt that.

I also doubt that India will choose to side against the West.


Really? Who said it?
I'll say it. Russia will never have the ability to track NATO submarines at sea. It is not possible for anyone to do so.


You see, there are two little problems - you forget to protect American citizens and you forget that when you start your preparations, the Russians will start theirs and, highly likely, they'll attack first (if they believe that you are really determined to die for the Britons).
Attacking first will not save Russia. We'll still launch the ICBMs. We'll still have a minimum of eight Ohio submarines at sea.

Killing American citizens will result in the death of Russian citizens.


I wish it was true. In fact, there is a hell of work to done.
It is true. If we launch a nuke at a Russian target, that target will be destroyed.


Really? They said it?
I'll say it. Russia will never have the ability to track NATO submarines. It is not possible for anyone to do so.


It's not that simple, especially without sattelites and recon planes.
We have satellites and recon planes.


Of course they are. ALCMs are slow and vulnerable.
That is incorrect. ALCMs are not vulnerable.

"Slow" depends on what you think of as fast, but they travel at nearly the speed of sound.

They are also small and fly below radar.

There are experts who believe that in the future Russia will develop the ability to detect and destroy non-stealth cruise missiles. But this capability still lies in the future. And when that day comes, it will be easily countered by the use of stealth cruise missiles.


If the Russians launched their missiles at SBT - you'll have radar confirmation 2-3 minutes before they start to burst at ICBMs positions.
If we raise our alert level to DEFCON 1M as soon as the suspected launch is detected, we'll need only 20 seconds to launch after radar confirmation of the attack.


There is a great difference between terms 'launched' and 'operational' sattelites.
SBIRS High is operational.


Actually, nobody knows for sure. May be, there will be global warming because of great amount of CO_2 and H_2O vaporized in the atmosphere. Greenhouse effect, you know.
The science is clear. There will be at least three years with no growing season.


Why? There is Ukraine nearby, China, India, EU. Of course, they'll be happy to share their food (and other supplies) with Russia after the first rounds of the nuclear exchange.
Ukraine and the EU wouldn't be willing to help Russia even if they could.

China and India will be too busy starving to death to share their food. That "three or more years of no growing season" will apply to everyone in the entire world.


Bla-bla-bla.
Have you ever been to Las Vegas? There is a nice place 65 miles Northwest from it.
Over 1,000 nuclear bursts and the city is still alive.
Underground nuclear tests are not the same as aboveground explosions. And the few aboveground explosions there did not dump their fallout on the city.

Parts of Russia will be uninhabitable after a counterforce attack. The same also in the US.


No. If the UK declared war to Russia - it is entirely British fault.
That is incorrect. If Russia uses nuclear weapons first, Russia will be at fault. The only exception would be if the UK had been on the verge of destroying Russia when Russia used their nukes. But that was not the scenario that you proposed.

And remember that Russia would also not be able to track the UK's submarine that was out on patrol. So Russia would also have to confront retaliation from the UK in addition to a major counterforce attack from the US.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
624
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
Minor bases inside cities are not targets. The targets are significant bases that are large and located outside cities.
Bases cannot simply be evacuated to different locations to dodge nuclear attacks.
Of course they can and they will. That's what they do during threatening period and numerous exercises.

There are two problems with the use of low frequency radar. The first problem is that low-frequency radar is too imprecise to be used for weapon tracking. All it can do is show the general location of a plane.

The second problem is that low-frequency radar doesn't work against stealth bombers. The anti-stealth ability only works against stealth fighters.
Wow. You just find a perfect way to solve all problems with F-35 & F-22 - just rename them in 'bombers'.

I also doubt that India will choose to side against the West.

India already make a great business with the Russians (including reselling Russian oil in Europe and European good in Russia).

I'll say it. Russia will never have the ability to track NATO submarines at sea. It is not possible for anyone to do so.
Really? Nobody can track submarines in sea, and nobody can hack Navy computers or infiltrate Navy HQs? You are definitely wrong.
It is true. If we launch a nuke at a Russian target, that target will be destroyed.
No. Shooting at the target doesn't guarantee its destruction. Some targets can move, some targets can be protected, some targets can be sheltered and some targets can be too big to be destroyed by a single nuke.


We have satellites and recon planes.

How many of them will survive in the first hours of the war? It's a big question.
That is incorrect. ALCMs are not vulnerable.

"Slow" depends on what you think of as fast, but they travel at nearly the speed of sound.

They are also small and fly below radar.

There are experts who believe that in the future Russia will develop the ability to detect and destroy non-stealth cruise missiles. But this capability still lies in the future. And when that day comes, it will be easily countered by the use of stealth cruise missiles.
They already have that ability. It's even commercially aviable at the international markets.

If we raise our alert level to DEFCON 1M as soon as the suspected launch is detected, we'll need only 20 seconds to launch after radar confirmation of the attack.
No. At least two minutes between POTUS decision and pressing 'launch' buttons by crews, then - 90 seconds to actual missile launch and its leaving the possible fireball zone. Before it - at least five minutes to detect launch, inform POTUS and wait for his decision. Actually, the vulnerability 'sleeping Joe in the middle' may be deadly in many other scenarios, too.

SBIRS High is operational.
Fully operational? Really? Source, please. There are pretty good reasons why they want to replace it. And how many SBIRS-HEO sats are actually operational now? May be, only two?

The science is clear. There will be at least three years with no growing season.
No. Modern climatology isn't a science at all. Anyway, they didn't count climatic consequences of evaporation of the great amount of water and greenhouse effect of CO_2. There are pretty good chances that there will be three years (or may be more) of years without winter as well. But it doesn't really matter. Three-years winter or three-years summer don't kill people directly. Unpreparedness kills. That's why the Russians have their national reserves - food, fuel, fertilizers, metals, tools, machinery, gadgets, and many, many other things. And that's why they are ready to take whatever they need from their neighbors.


Ukraine and the EU wouldn't be willing to help Russia even if they could.
It's not about willing. It's about taking. You know: "You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."


China and India will be too busy starving to death to share their food. That "three or more years of no growing season" will apply to everyone in the entire world.
It's a much better to give them 5% of your food and not be nuked, then don't give them food and be nuked. Especially if they can get 100% of food from Japan or Pakistan.
Underground nuclear tests are not the same as aboveground explosions. And the few aboveground explosions there did not dump their fallout on the city.
Few? Are you kidding, man?


Parts of Russia will be uninhabitable after a counterforce attack. The same also in the US.

It depends on your definition of the term 'inhabitable'.
That is incorrect. If Russia uses nuclear weapons first, Russia will be at fault. The only exception would be if the UK had been on the verge of destroying Russia when Russia used their nukes. But that was not the scenario that you proposed.

And remember that Russia would also not be able to track the UK's submarine that was out on patrol. So Russia would also have to confront retaliation from the UK in addition to a major counterforce attack from the US.
No. It's the same mistake, which led to WWI. Germany gave her guarantees and carte blache to Austria. Austria gave her carte blanche to the international pan-german activists. Russia gave carte blanche to Serbia, and Serbia gave carte blanche to the international pan-slavic terrorists. And then you know - the single terrorist caused the chain reaction.

If you make clear, that now terrorists and activists are your decision-makers - ok, then a World War is inevitable. We remember it, the Russians remember it, and even Joe Biden (however stupid) knows it. 'No taxation without representation' and 'No protection without obedience'.

If any NATO member attacks Russia (or anybody else) without direct American order - they do it on their own risk. And in described scenario (the Russian nuclear attack against HMNB Clyde and Vanguard submarine at sea as answer on British declaration of war and attack against Russia) the USA will rather search a way to diplomatical solution to avoid massive civilian casualties (both in the UK and in the USA) than commit an immediate murder-suicide.
America is not British colony anymore, and won't pay all British (or European) cheques. If they want an independent policy - they should do it at their own expense.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
624
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
And remember that Russia would also not be able to track the UK's submarine that was out on patrol. So Russia would also have to confront retaliation from the UK in addition to a major counterforce attack from the US.
Even if the Russians can't find one British Vanguard submarine in the sea, it is much better to face an attack of, say, forty-sixty REs from one submarine rather then 180 REs from all three of them. So, if the UK declare war on Russia - the best (actually, the only) Russian choice is an immediate attack against HMNB Clyde.
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,429
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
Even if the Russians can't find one British Vanguard submarine in the sea, it is much better to face an attack of, say, forty-sixty REs from one submarine rather then 180 REs from all three of them. So, if the UK declare war on Russia - the best (actually, the only) Russian choice is an immediate attack against HMNB Clyde.
If they do that, The USA, France and UK all reply with massive nuclear tipped missile attacks from subs, ships, bombers AND in the case of the US land bases. Dos Vidanya Rodina.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
624
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
If they do that, The USA, France and UK all reply with massive nuclear tipped missile attacks from subs, ships, bombers AND in the case of the US land bases. Dos Vidanya Rodina.
Wag the dog, you know. Washington cedes the right to start a nuclear war to London, London cedes this right to Kiev, Kiev cedes this right to Dniepr, Dniepr cedes this right to the extremists from Kraken battalion. But even if Biden decides that now decision-makers are Ukrainian Neo-Nazis, it's anyway still his decision and his responsibility. As well as Gavrilo Princip didn't started WWI. The war was started by the people who decided that such people can really make decisions, people who designed the whole system. And, what is most important - they lost all their empires - Russian Empire, British Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire... Americans had won because they are much more pragmatical and flexible.

Anyway. If you really want such a system - what kind of 'retaliation for ally' strike do you prefer? Immediate counter-value strike - without any preparation, without slightest attempt to save your own civilians, attack against Russian cities only (with the only goal to kill as much civilians as you can)? Or, may be, defered counter-force strike - wait a bit, evacuate civilians from the cities, prepare ABD, attack their nuclear forces first (to decrease amount of the Russian warheads, bursting over American cities)? Or, may be, there will be a way to find a diplomatic solution? There is the difference between the death of five thousand Brits, death of twenty million Americans and death of two hundred million Americans, you know.
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,429
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
Wag the dog, you know. Washington cedes the right to start a nuclear war to London, London cedes this right to Kiev, Kiev cedes this right to Dniepr, Dniepr cedes this right to the extremists from Kraken battalion. But even if Biden decides that now decision-makers are Ukrainian Neo-Nazis, it's anyway still his decision and his responsibility. As well as Gavrilo Princip didn't started WWI. The war was started by the people who decided that such people can really make decisions, people who designed the whole system. And, what is most important - they lost all their empires - Russian Empire, British Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire... Americans had won because they are much more pragmatical and flexible.

Anyway. If you really want such a system - what kind of 'retaliation for ally' strike do you prefer? Immediate counter-value strike - without any preparation, without slightest attempt to save your own civilians, attack against Russian cities only (with the only goal to kill as much civilians as you can)? Or, may be, defered counter-force strike - wait a bit, evacuate civilians from the cities, prepare ABD, attack their nuclear forces first (to decrease amount of the Russian warheads, bursting over American cities)? Or, may be, there will be a way to find a diplomatic solution? There is the difference between the death of five thousand Brits, death of twenty million Americans and death of two hundred million Americans, you know.
MAD requires an immediate massive strike, then follow-on strikes from manned bombers and subs to finish off what's left. We won't start it, but if Putin is stupid enough to use a nuke, Armageddon follows as EVERYONE that has nukes launches them. Israel, Iran, North Korea, China, probably Taiwan, France, the UK, Pakistan, India and the USA. Russia gets hit from China, Europe, the USA and the sea.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
624
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
MAD requires an immediate massive strike, then follow-on strikes from manned bombers and subs to finish off what's left. We won't start it, but if Putin is stupid enough to use a nuke, Armageddon follows as EVERYONE that has nukes launches them. Israel, Iran, North Korea, China, probably Taiwan, France, the UK, Pakistan, India and the USA. Russia gets hit from China, Europe, the USA and the sea.
Do you really believe that murder-suicide is the only possible answer on any usage of a nuclear weapon? Don't you think, that killing the enemy with lesser losses should be a better answer? Do you really think, that London must control American nuclear arsenal and the Americans should kill themselves where ever Brits decided to attack Russians? Do you really believe that the Chinese and or Indians will prefer to kill themselves instead of became leaders of post-WWIII world order just to enpleasure you?
 

Open Bolt

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
1,788
Reaction score
647
Points
163
Location
Michigan
what kind of 'retaliation for ally' strike do you prefer?
Upload all our hedge warheads as fast as we can. Then, massive counterforce strike.

Pick off Russian cities to match any destruction that Russia does to NATO cities.

If Russia spares NATO cities, then spare Russian cities and limit the attacks to military targets.


Do you really believe that murder-suicide is the only possible answer on any usage of a nuclear weapon? Don't you think, that killing the enemy with lesser losses should be a better answer? Do you really think, that London must control American nuclear arsenal and the Americans should kill themselves where ever Brits decided to attack Russians?
If Russia nukes a NATO target, we're nuking Russia back and that's all there is to it.


Do you really believe that the Chinese and or Indians will prefer to kill themselves instead of became leaders of post-WWIII world order just to enpleasure you?
The fallout and the nuclear winter will get them.
 

Open Bolt

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
1,788
Reaction score
647
Points
163
Location
Michigan
Of course they can and they will. That's what they do during threatening period and numerous exercises.
That is incorrect. It's not possible for military bases to dodge nuclear missiles.


Wow. You just find a perfect way to solve all problems with F-35 & F-22
The only problems with them are politicians saying that they need to perform roles that they were not designed to fulfil.

Those problems are solved by limiting our expectations and requiring them to do only what they were designed to do.


just rename them in 'bombers'.
Calling a fighter jet a bomber will not make it become a bomber.

Stealth bombers have no vertical stabilizers for low frequency radar to resonate with and detect.


India already make a great business with the Russians (including reselling Russian oil in Europe and European good in Russia).
That doesn't mean that India is going to turn against the West.


Really? Nobody can track submarines in sea, and nobody can hack Navy computers or infiltrate Navy HQs? You are definitely wrong.
Navy headquarters is not going to know the position of our subs except only in the most general sense.

I'm not wrong. No one can track US/UK/French submarines at sea.


No. Shooting at the target doesn't guarantee its destruction. Some targets can move, some targets can be protected, some targets can be sheltered and some targets can be too big to be destroyed by a single nuke.
There is no shelter or protection from a direct hit by a strategic nuke.

If a target is large enough to require multiple nukes, it will be attacked with multiple nukes. Off hand I cannot think of any military target that would be that large however. Any such target would be the exception, not the rule.


How many of them will survive in the first hours of the war? It's a big question.
If Russia does enough damage to the US that we can no longer fly spy planes, similarly-catastrophic damage will be inflicted on Russia before they have a chance to relocate any targets.


They already have that ability. It's even commercially aviable at the international markets.
That is incorrect. There is still no ability to attack and destroy non-stealth cruise missiles.

That ability may be developed in the future, but it has not yet been developed.


No. At least two minutes between POTUS decision and pressing 'launch' buttons by crews,
Two minutes is the maximum time to launch if the order comes from out of the blue without any warning.

If alert levels are raised to Defcon 1M as soon as the Russians launch their attack, it will take a lot less than two minutes to launch the ICBMs when the order is given.


then - 90 seconds to actual missile launch and its leaving the possible fireball zone.
The missiles will launch the moment crews turn the keys to launch them.

Perhaps after launch it will take a short time for them to ascend out of the blast zone.


Before it - at least five minutes to detect launch, inform POTUS and wait for his decision. Actually, the vulnerability 'sleeping Joe in the middle' may be deadly in many other scenarios, too.
POTUS will be informed as soon as Russia launches their attack. By the time early warning radar confirms that the attack is real, the President will be alert and ready to give his orders. And the ICBM crews will be all ready to turn the final keys to launch their missiles.


Fully operational? Really? Source, please.
I've already provided sources that we have five (soon to be six) SBIRS-GEO satellites and four SBIRS-HEO satellites. What more do you need?


There are pretty good reasons why they want to replace it. And how many SBIRS-HEO sats are actually operational now?
Four SBIRS-HEO satellites.


May be, only two?
Four SBIRS-HEO satellites.


No. Modern climatology isn't a science at all. Anyway, they didn't count climatic consequences of evaporation of the great amount of water and greenhouse effect of CO_2. There are pretty good chances that there will be three years (or may be more) of years without winter as well.
That is incorrect. The science is sound. There will be at least three years without a growing season. Possibly many more.


But it doesn't really matter. Three-years winter or three-years summer don't kill people directly. Unpreparedness kills. That's why the Russians have their national reserves - food, fuel, fertilizers, metals, tools, machinery, gadgets, and many, many other things.
They'll need to go at least three years without a growing season.


And that's why they are ready to take whatever they need from their neighbors.
It's not about willing. It's about taking. You know: "You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."
It's a much better to give them 5% of your food and not be nuked, then don't give them food and be nuked. Especially if they can get 100% of food from Japan or Pakistan.
Russia will not be in any position to threaten anyone after we destroy Russia.

And no one will have anything to give to Russia regardless. Everybody will be too busy starving to death.


Few? Are you kidding, man?
From the link:
"From the 925 tests, 828 were underground."


It depends on your definition of the term 'inhabitable'.
I consider lethal radioactivity to be an unacceptable situation.


No. It's the same mistake, which led to WWI. Germany gave her guarantees and carte blache to Austria. Austria gave her carte blanche to the international pan-german activists. Russia gave carte blanche to Serbia, and Serbia gave carte blanche to the international pan-slavic terrorists. And then you know - the single terrorist caused the chain reaction.
If you make clear, that now terrorists and activists are your decision-makers - ok, then a World War is inevitable. We remember it, the Russians remember it, and even Joe Biden (however stupid) knows it. 'No taxation without representation' and 'No protection without obedience'.
If any NATO member attacks Russia (or anybody else) without direct American order - they do it on their own risk.
It will always be Russia who attacks first. Any claim that a NATO state attacked first will be a KGB lie.


And in described scenario (the Russian nuclear attack against HMNB Clyde and Vanguard submarine at sea as answer on British declaration of war and attack against Russia) the USA will rather search a way to diplomatical solution to avoid massive civilian casualties (both in the UK and in the USA) than commit an immediate murder-suicide.
That is incorrect. We will upload all of our hedge warheads and then launch a massive counterforce strike against Russia.


America is not British colony anymore, and won't pay all British (or European) cheques. If they want an independent policy - they should do it at their own expense.
As I noted above, Russia will be the actual aggressor. They will be treated as such.


Even if the Russians can't find one British Vanguard submarine in the sea, it is much better to face an attack of, say, forty-sixty REs from one submarine rather then 180 REs from all three of them. So, if the UK declare war on Russia - the best (actually, the only) Russian choice is an immediate attack against HMNB Clyde.
The cost will be a massive counterforce strike from the US as soon as we get our hedge warheads uploaded.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
65,601
Reaction score
22,405
Points
2,250
A hard reality is that Zelensky, Biden and Putin came up with a way to pilfer several billion dollars from the US.
Zelensky knew the deal and needs to go and the Ukraine does not join NATO and the US has stocked shelves again.
Zelensky was worth 1.8 billion when this fiasco started and is probably worth a few billion more today.
 

BackAgain

Neutronium Member & truth speaker
Joined
Nov 11, 2021
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
13,516
Points
2,268
Location
Now a resident of a Red state! Hallelujah!
Romney’s an asshole. Sure. But he may not be completely off-base in worrying about what fucking Putin might do.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
624
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
Upload all our hedge warheads as fast as we can.
It will take days, may be even weeks (if you wish to mount warheads on Tridents, too). Don't you want to evacuate people (at least children) from the cities before attack?

Then, massive counterforce strike.
While you were mounting warheads, the UK did surrender. Boris was overthroned, Liz said, that all this sh-t was only his fault, and signed a peace treaty on the more or less Russian terms (no more British support for Ukraine, that's all).
Between local defeat and certain death she chooses defeat.

Are you going to attack Russia anyway?
 

Open Bolt

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
1,788
Reaction score
647
Points
163
Location
Michigan
It will take days, may be even weeks (if you wish to mount warheads on Tridents, too). Don't you want to evacuate people (at least children) from the cities before attack?
I've no objection, but it will be a pointless exercise.


While you were mounting warheads, the UK did surrender. Boris was overthroned, Liz said, that all this sh-t was only his fault, and signed a peace treaty on the more or less Russian terms (no more British support for Ukraine, that's all).
Between local defeat and certain death she chooses defeat.
Not likely. They will be kept aware of the fact that we will attack as soon as the hedge warheads are uploaded.


Are you going to attack Russia anyway?
Of course.
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,429
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
Do you really believe that murder-suicide is the only possible answer on any usage of a nuclear weapon? Don't you think, that killing the enemy with lesser losses should be a better answer? Do you really think, that London must control American nuclear arsenal and the Americans should kill themselves where ever Brits decided to attack Russians? Do you really believe that the Chinese and or Indians will prefer to kill themselves instead of became leaders of post-WWIII world order just to enpleasure you?
Yes. The only way to deter someone like Putin is to make the results so horrible that his own people will kill him before allowing him to use nukes.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
65,601
Reaction score
22,405
Points
2,250
Yes. The only way to deter someone like Putin is to make the results so horrible that his own people will kill him before allowing him to use nukes.
That plan doesn't seem to be working.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top