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

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
63,818
Reaction score
21,195
Points
2,250
So far the consequences of his actions aren’t threatening his supporters. Launching nukes will change that.
I don't know anything about Russia's infrastructure so I can't comment.
I do know that we get a fair percentage of food and non-organic material from them.
Where do we nuke that doesn't cut off the products we need to prevent a depression?
 

Open Bolt

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
564
Points
163
Location
Michigan
It ain't gonna happen if it hasn't happened.
That is incorrect. If Russia nukes a NATO country, the US will nuke Russia.


I don't know anything about Russia's infrastructure so I can't comment.
I do know that we get a fair percentage of food and non-organic material from them.
Where do we nuke that doesn't cut off the products we need to prevent a depression?
Prevent a depression???

The best case scenario in a large nuclear war is the worldwide collapse of civilization and a return to stone age existence for thousands of years.

The worst case scenario is an extinction event greater than the one caused by that asteroid 65 million years ago (with humanity falling among the extinct).

There isn't going to be any economy to worry about after a large nuclear war. There may not even be people left to do any worrying.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
63,818
Reaction score
21,195
Points
2,250
That is incorrect. If Russia nukes a NATO country, the US will nuke Russia.



Prevent a depression???

The best case scenario in a large nuclear war is the worldwide collapse of civilization and a return to stone age existence for thousands of years.

The worst case scenario is an extinction event greater than the one caused by that asteroid 65 million years ago (with humanity falling among the extinct).

There isn't going to be any economy to worry about after a large nuclear war. There may not even be people left to do any worrying.
Russia doesn't need to nuke anything; the rest of the world is being starved.
I don't love Putin but everything we buy is skyrocketing.
 

Open Bolt

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
564
Points
163
Location
Michigan
Russia doesn't need to nuke anything; the rest of the world is being starved.
I don't love Putin but everything we buy is skyrocketing.
If Russia doesn't use nuclear weapons and doesn't invade NATO then there won't be a nuclear war (at least, not between Russia and NATO).

The inflation is due to all the stimulus that was dumped into the economy during the pandemic. The Federal Reserve will get it under control, but we'll probably have to have a recession.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
63,818
Reaction score
21,195
Points
2,250
If Russia doesn't use nuclear weapons and doesn't invade NATO then there won't be a nuclear war (at least, not between Russia and NATO).

The inflation is due to all the stimulus that was dumped into the economy during the pandemic. The Federal Reserve will get it under control, but we'll probably have to have a recession.
We never recovered from The DOT COM crash.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
63,818
Reaction score
21,195
Points
2,250
If Russia doesn't use nuclear weapons and doesn't invade NATO then there won't be a nuclear war (at least, not between Russia and NATO).

The inflation is due to all the stimulus that was dumped into the economy during the pandemic. The Federal Reserve will get it under control, but we'll probably have to have a recession.
The supply chain is Russia.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
2,935
Reaction score
619
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
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.
The problem is, that with the current nuclear arsenals even in the worst realistic scenarios (when both sides are more or less prepared) estimated Russian casualties are much less than 40 millions (their 'terrible but acceptable' level). So, if they face the choice - to win a nuclear war (and pay terrible, but acceptable price) or to lose a conventional war (and then pay terrible and unacceptable price) - they will choose to fight and win a nuclear war.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
2,935
Reaction score
619
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
That is incorrect. If Russia nukes a NATO country, the US will nuke Russia.



Prevent a depression???

The best case scenario in a large nuclear war is the worldwide collapse of civilization and a return to stone age existence for thousands of years.

The worst case scenario is an extinction event greater than the one caused by that asteroid 65 million years ago (with humanity falling among the extinct).

There isn't going to be any economy to worry about after a large nuclear war. There may not even be people left to do any worrying.
No. It's just a nucleophobic BS. The best scenario is a decisive victory of one side (first counterforce strike, then coerce into peace on mutually accepatable terms without retaliation strike at all). The worst scenario - mutual destruction of Russia and the USA and rise of China and India.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
2,935
Reaction score
619
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
That is incorrect. It's not possible for military bases to dodge nuclear missiles.
Buildings, yes, can't dodge missiles. But mobile missile complexes, bombers, submarines, ships, tanks, infantry, etc can leave their bases. That's what they often do.


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.



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.
It's not about vertical stabilizers at all. The radio-absorbing coating just don't absorb L-band radio waves. So, it's still a big and pretty visible target for the UNF- radarsradars (like Protivnik-GE radar in S-400 complex).


That doesn't mean that India is going to turn against the West.
You see, spoiling western sanctions is already turning against the West.

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.
Wow. Any manned submarine is a bubble of air in water. There is no way to hide it from a really loud sound impulse.

There is no shelter or protection from a direct hit by a strategic nuke.
Sure there are plenty of such shelters.

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.
Man, I thought you said, that you are going to give Russians plenty of time to relocate everything, mounting spare warheads on all missiles.

That is incorrect. There is still no ability to attack and destroy non-stealth cruise missiles.


Two minutes is the maximum time to launch if the order comes from out of the blue without any warning.
No. Seven minutes was a minimal time at drills (under the best circumstances). In the real life, with active Russian countermeasures it may take much more.
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?



Four SBIRS-HEO satellites.



Four SBIRS-HEO satellites.
Four SBIRS-HEO satellites were launched. How many of them are fully operational? Only two, I suppose.

That is incorrect. The science is sound. There will be at least three years without a growing season. Possibly many more.
It's just a pseudo science. Something like astrology. They didn't count CO_2 or H_2O emission at all. And they terribly overestimated amount of burning materials in the cities.
From the link:
"From the 925 tests, 828 were underground."
One hundred of the open air nuclear bursts at one hundred miles from Las Vegas and the town is still alive and kicking.


I consider lethal radioactivity to be an unacceptable situation.
There will be lethal levels of the radioactivity in few days only even after on ground bursts. In few weeks you could swim in the crater lakes without real risk of immediate death.


It will always be Russia who attacks first. Any claim that a NATO state attacked first will be a KGB lie.
There were plenty of cases when NATO countries attacked first other countries.
The cost will be a massive counterforce strike from the US as soon as we get our hedge warheads uploaded.
Don't you think, that the Russians will attack all you nuclear forces, swarmed at bases for uploading and mounting additional warheads?

Don't you think, that you must do it before the Russian attack, not after it?
 

Open Bolt

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
564
Points
163
Location
Michigan
Buildings, yes, can't dodge missiles. But mobile missile complexes, bombers, submarines, ships, tanks, infantry, etc can leave their bases. That's what they often do.
Bombers and other planes will have a chance if they are all ready to take off right when the attack is launched.

Missiles will be able to be launched if they are prepared for rapid launch.

Everything else will not be able to move fast enough to escape the attack once it is launched.


It's not about vertical stabilizers at all. The radio-absorbing coating just don't absorb L-band radio waves. So, it's still a big and pretty visible target for the UNF- radarsradars (like Protivnik-GE radar in S-400 complex).
That is incorrect. Low frequency radar works against stealth fighters by having a wavelength the same size as a fighter's vertical stabilizers.

There are no vertical stabilizers on a stealth bomber.

Low frequency radar also lacks the resolution (due to the long wavelength) needed to actually attack a stealth fighter. All it can do is detect the fighter's general position.


You see, spoiling western sanctions is already turning against the West.
Not really. And it's not like they are rescuing Russia from the sanctions.


Wow. Any manned submarine is a bubble of air in water. There is no way to hide it from a really loud sound impulse.
Sure there is. Just keep the submarine a reasonable distance from any such sound impulse.


Sure there are plenty of such shelters.
None that are immune to being destroyed with nuclear weapons.


Man, I thought you said, that you are going to give Russians plenty of time to relocate everything, mounting spare warheads on all missiles.
Not if Russia launches a huge unprovoked attack against the US.

If we detect a massive launch against the US, our ICBMs will be launched right then.


How do they manage to detect cruise missiles that are flying below radar?


No. Seven minutes was a minimal time at drills (under the best circumstances).
That is incorrect. It takes two minutes to launch the ICBMs under the worst case scenario.

If the missiles are raised to Defcon 1M alert level, they can be launched instantly.


In the real life, with active Russian countermeasures it may take much more.
There are no countermeasures that will prevent the US from launching our ICBMs within seconds.


Four SBIRS-HEO satellites were launched. How many of them are fully operational? Only two, I suppose.
All of them are operational.


It's just a pseudo science. Something like astrology. They didn't count CO_2 or H_2O emission at all. And they terribly overestimated amount of burning materials in the cities.
That is incorrect. The science is quite sound.

Scientists actually do know what they are talking about.


One hundred of the open air nuclear bursts at one hundred miles from Las Vegas and the town is still alive and kicking.
Any above-ground tests in Nevada were timed so that the fallout did not go towards populated areas.


There will be lethal levels of the radioactivity in few days only even after on ground bursts. In few weeks you could swim in the crater lakes without real risk of immediate death.
The fact that the death will not be immediate does not mean the radioactivity isn't lethal. If people die two months after being exposed, they are still dead. If people die of cancer five years after being exposed, they are still dead.


There were plenty of cases when NATO countries attacked first other countries.
Not when Russia is involved. When Russia is involved, Russia is always the aggressor.


Don't you think, that the Russians will attack all you nuclear forces, swarmed at bases for uploading and mounting additional warheads?
Don't you think, that you must do it before the Russian attack, not after it?
If Russia makes a massive unprovoked attack against us, we will launch our ICBMs right then.


No. It's just a nucleophobic BS.
That is incorrect. The collapse of civilization and maybe even the extinction of humanity are very real consequences of nuclear war.


The best scenario is a decisive victory of one side (first counterforce strike, then coerce into peace on mutually accepatable terms without retaliation strike at all).
That scenario is not possible. There will always be a massive counterforce strike against Russia if Russia nukes a NATO target.

There will be no coercion. US subs will destroy Russian cities if Russia destroys NATO cities.


The worst scenario - mutual destruction of Russia and the USA and rise of China and India.
Another scenario that is not possible. China and India will be too busy starving to death to do any rising.

And the extinction of humanity is a much worse scenario than that.


The problem is, that with the current nuclear arsenals even in the worst realistic scenarios (when both sides are more or less prepared) estimated Russian casualties are much less than 40 millions (their 'terrible but acceptable' level). So, if they face the choice - to win a nuclear war (and pay terrible, but acceptable price) or to lose a conventional war (and then pay terrible and unacceptable price) - they will choose to fight and win a nuclear war.
It is not possible for Russia to win a nuclear war with NATO. The US will ensure that Russia will be among the losers of such a war.
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
5,000
Reaction score
3,822
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
Silvercat doesn’t seem to understand that using active sonar is a death sentence for a surface ship or submarine. Sonar is like a flashlight in the dark, You can detect it long before it can detect you.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
2,935
Reaction score
619
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
Silvercat doesn’t seem to understand that using active sonar is a death sentence for a surface ship or submarine. Sonar is like a flashlight in the dark, You can detect it long before it can detect you.
You see, the 'loud sound impulse' doesn't always mean 'sonar' of a surface ship or submarine. Quite often it means unmanned underwater vehicle (like Clavesine or Cephalopod) or even a distant underwater nuclear burst. The ocean could become a pretty noisy place when the nuclear war is started. That's why the manned submarines won't survive long enough for the third, counter-value strike.
 

Open Bolt

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
564
Points
163
Location
Michigan
You see, the 'loud sound impulse' doesn't always mean 'sonar' of a surface ship or submarine. Quite often it means unmanned underwater vehicle (like Clavesine or Cephalopod) or even a distant underwater nuclear burst. The ocean could become a pretty noisy place when the nuclear war is started. That's why the manned submarines won't survive long enough for the third, counter-value strike.
Sound dissipates pretty rapidly as it travels from its source. No NATO missile subs will be anywhere near any loud noises that could expose their location.
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
5,000
Reaction score
3,822
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
You see, the 'loud sound impulse' doesn't always mean 'sonar' of a surface ship or submarine. Quite often it means unmanned underwater vehicle (like Clavesine or Cephalopod) or even a distant underwater nuclear burst. The ocean could become a pretty noisy place when the nuclear war is started. That's why the manned submarines won't survive long enough for the third, counter-value strike.
Your unmanned underwater vehicle survives to make ONE noise before being destroyed. Russian and especially Chinese subs are far noisier than NATO ones and aren't going to survive long enough to locate NATO subs before being destroyed.
 

Open Bolt

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
564
Points
163
Location
Michigan
Your unmanned underwater vehicle survives to make ONE noise before being destroyed. Russian and especially Chinese subs are far noisier than NATO ones and aren't going to survive long enough to locate NATO subs before being destroyed.
Chinese nuclear-powered subs are noisy. Chinese missile subs will all be sunk in the opening seconds of any war with China.

But Toshiba illegally sold the Soviets technology for making quiet nuclear-powered submarines. I'm less confident in our ability to take out Russian missile subs.

As far as US missile subs go, they are going to be nowhere near Russian subs and Russian noisemaking devices. US missile subs will be far away where no one is even looking for them.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$115.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top