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

[Silver Cat]

Than the world is really stupid. Iraq was an aggressor nation. First it went to war with Iran and lost. Then it invaded and conquered Kuwait, a much smaller and weaker nation and was preparing to invade Saudi Arabia when the US Air Force and the first US Army forces arrived and deterred Iraq. The UN demanded Iraq evacuate Kuwait and it didn't. So the US led a coalition of both Arab and western forces to push Iraq out. After much destruction, Iraq signed a cease fire with many conditions that it almost immediately started violating. The US went back to war with Iraq to enforce the cease-fire and topple Saddam who had proven he couldn't be trusted to keep agreements. Putin and Russia are behaving even worse than Saddam and Iraq.

The problem is, that the 85% of the world's population consider the USA as more aggressive state than Iraq.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The problem is, that the 85% of the world's population consider the USA as more aggressive state than Iraq.

To quote one of the longest lasting empires on the planet: "let them hate as long as they fear".

 

[Silver Cat]

To quote one of the longest lasting empires on the planet: "let them hate as long as they fear".

You see... To cause fear you must have real opportunities, not just empty declarations. And to achieve a real opportunity to win a nuclear war against Russia and China simultaneously - we need to make America great again.

 

[Open Bolt]

Or, if their calculations are correct - they can try to attack when cornered.

Their calculations are wrong. We will destroy them.

Right now the USA can't win a nuclear war against Russia and China simultaneously. We know it, they know it.

No one ever wins a nuclear war. But the US is able to ensure the destruction of whichever one attacks us.

If we upload our hedge warheads, we will be more than able to ensure the destruction of both nations.

That's why they are sure, that the USA won't directly intervene however provocative they are.

They are wrong.

The problem is, that the 85% of the world's population consider the USA as more aggressive state than Iraq.

That's why drone strikes are good, and why collateral damage from drone strikes doesn't matter.

You see... To cause fear you must have real opportunities, not just empty declarations. And to achieve a real opportunity to win a nuclear war against Russia and China simultaneously - we need to make America great again.

No one ever wins a nuclear war.

But if we upload our hedge warheads, we will have more than enough to take out both Russia and China at the same time.

 

[Silver Cat]

But if we upload our hedge warheads, we will have more than enough to take out both Russia and China at the same time.

Not if they:
a) degrade US capabilities of surveillance;
b) improve their own capabilities of surveillance, precise strikes, civil defense, ABD, etc..
c) attack first.
d) successfully recuperate after double weakened US retaliation strike.

 

[Open Bolt]

Not if they:
a) degrade US capabilities of surveillance;
b) improve their own capabilities of surveillance, precise strikes, civil defense, ABD, etc..

That will not prevent us from uploading our hedge warheads and destroying both Russia and China.

Civil defense is a fantasy. Missile defenses do not work against large attacks.

c) attack first.

Massively attacking us from out of the blue would prevent us from uploading our hedge warheads, but we'd still be able to destroy whichever one of them it was who massively attacked us.

d) successfully recuperate after double weakened US retaliation strike.

Our retaliation strike would not be weakened in any way whatsoever.

 

[Ringo]

Iran, Russia, China to Run War Drills in Latin America

Iran, Russia, and China are gearing up to run a series of major war drills in Latin America in a show of force meant to signal how these militaries can reach the United States.

freebeacon.com

 

[Silver Cat]

Ohio’s carrying Tridents have never been deployed in the North Atlantic. With their range they don’t have to be so they are deployed far out of reach of Russian and Chinese forces.

Yesterday, USS Rhode Island, Ohio-class submarine left HMNB Clyde and started today the heavy duty nearby Great Britain.

And no, patroling areas are well known to both sides.

Do you see this zone just nearby Scotland and Ireland? There she is. It's quite noisy place, with many ears (including Russian auxiliary recon ships) and even with (right now) one Russian Yasen-class attacking submarine (with long-range torpedoes and hypersonic Zyrcon missiles).

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yesterday, USS Rhode Island, Ohio-class submarine left HMNB Clyde and started today the heavy duty nearby Great Britain.
View attachment 667002
And no, patroling areas are well known to both sides.
View attachment 667005

Do you see this zone just nearby Scotland and Ireland? There she is. It's quite noisy place, with many ears (including Russian auxiliary recon ships) and even with (right now) one Russian Yasen-class attacking submarine (with long-range torpedoes and hypersonic Zyrcon missiles).

That was a scheduled show the flag port call. There is no way a SSBN would operate in those areas on the map near Europe. With 7,500-mile ranged missiles there is no reason for her to be there.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yesterday, USS Rhode Island, Ohio-class submarine left HMNB Clyde and started today the heavy duty nearby Great Britain.
View attachment 667002
And no, patroling areas are well known to both sides.
View attachment 667005

Do you see this zone just nearby Scotland and Ireland? There she is. It's quite noisy place, with many ears (including Russian auxiliary recon ships) and even with (right now) one Russian Yasen-class attacking submarine (with long-range torpedoes and hypersonic Zyrcon missiles).

How do you know there is a Russian sub in those waters? The Russians don't publicize their sub locations. You are simply imagining things or believing propaganda. Seeing as NATO subs outnumber Russian ones, I'll guarantee you that every Russian SSN, SSGN or SSBN has a NATO attack sub tracking it just waiting for an excuse to sink it. The US alone had more nuclear attack subs than Russia has nuclear subs total and US subs are more dependable, spend more time at sea on patrol and have better sensors AND SOSUS, aerial ASW support AND surface vessel ASW support as well. Add in another 6 right now and a total of 11 soon from the French and another 10 from the British and you see the Russian navy is outclassed and outnumbered. Oh by the way, your Yasen class is an SSGN, NOT an SSN so it's not going to be shooting torpedoes at anyone, it's a strategic platform like a Typhoon. It's going to be trying to hide from NATO subs.

 

[Silver Cat]

That was a scheduled show the flag port call. There is no way a SSBN would operate in those areas on the map near Europe. With 7,500-mile ranged missiles there is no reason for her to be there.

There are both rear patrolling areas and forward patrolling areas. The reason for being in forward patrolling areas (as close to their targets in Russia as it's possible) is simple - it's time of flight. For example, if the target is Naval Base Gadjievo in Murmansk region (with 5-7 SSBNs and a number of attacking and special submarines) defended by S-400 (which can intercept incoming warheads slowed down to 4,8km/s approximately at the altitude of 20 km) and your Ohio launch four missiles (with, say, four REs each) from rear patrolling area, then they need say, forty minutes to reach their target. In forty minutes the Russians will be able to:
1) detect the launch and calculate trajectories - 1-2 min,
2) make a decision on Launch under attack (you know, Russians SSBNs can launch all their missiles in one salvo from the pier) 5-7 minutes ; and increase the readiness of S-400;
3) prepare submarines to the launch - 15 min;
4) actually launch 5*16 missiles with, say, 4 warheads each = 320 warheads against American cities - 3-4 min.

In sum - 24-38 min.

So, after all of this they still have time to smoke their last cigarettes or, if they are lucky, S-400 will intercept all 4*4=16 incoming warheads, they will reload their submarines and go to sea to fight another day (or even another week).
--------
But there is totally another situation if you launch from the forward patrolling area. With flight of time less then 10 min, they hardly will intercept few warheads, and other will transform their base in outpost of hell.

Of course, it works only with out of blue attack. If the Russians think, that there is a risk of uncontrollable escalation - they will just send their submarines and ships in sea long before becoming really provocative.
Anyway, of course, they must send their attacking submarines (at least one of them) to control that Ohio in forward patrolling area, and be ready to kill her at the very moment when she try to launch her missiles.

The position in the rear patrolling area is 'defensive' and a part of the Deterrence Type I. It is sending the message: 'If you attack our country and our nuclear forces, some submarines will survive anyway, and then, they will attack your cities or, at least, they will be tools of blackmail and negotiations for the better conditions of the peace. '

The position in the forward patrolling area is part of the Deterrence Type II, it's both aggressive and vulnerable.

It means: 'We can attack you if we consider your behavior extremely provocative (even if you don't) , but if you really want to continue the escalation (or can't retreat) you can gamble and have your chances in the preemptive strike'. You know, one of Pearl-Harbor scenarios.

 

[Silver Cat]

How do you know there is a Russian sub in those waters?

Same way I know, that there is at least one US attacking submarine in Barents sea. It's the old game, and it's much more close to chess than to poker. If the whites make their first turn e2-e4, highly likely, the black will answer e7-e5.
Nowadays the world is pretty transparent and predictable.

The Russians don't publicize their sub locations. You are simply imagining things or believing propaganda. Seeing as NATO subs outnumber Russian ones, I'll guarantee you that every Russian SSN, SSGN or SSBN has a NATO attack sub tracking it just waiting for an excuse to sink it. The US alone had more nuclear attack subs than Russia has nuclear subs total and US subs are more dependable, spend more time at sea on patrol and have better sensors AND SOSUS, aerial ASW support AND surface vessel ASW support as well. Add in another 6 right now and a total of 11 soon from the French and another 10 from the British and you see the Russian navy is outclassed and outnumbered. Oh by the way, your Yasen class is an SSGN, NOT an SSN so it's not going to be shooting torpedoes at anyone, it's a strategic platform like a Typhoon. It's going to be trying to hide from NATO subs.

If you think about fair battles between the fleets somewhere in the middle of oceans - think one more time. In the nuclear age we are talking about 'eggshells armed with sledgehammers' or something even more uncompensated and unbalanced. The terrible power and the terrible multiplicative effects.

 

[Open Bolt]

S-400 (which can intercept incoming warheads slowed down to 4,8km/s approximately at the altitude of 20 km)

Not a chance. The countermeasures would overwhelm it.

But there is totally another situation if you launch from the forward patrolling area. With flight of time less then 10 min, they hardly will intercept few warheads, and other will transform their base in outpost of hell.

No American SLBM sub patrols so close to their target that the flight time is less than 10 minutes.

We might send our attack subs that close on occasion, if a specific mission calls for it, but they aren't the ones carrying the nuclear missiles.

 

[Silver Cat]

Not a chance. The countermeasures would overwhelm it.

Light decoys would be filtered out by the atmosphere, and heavy decoys decrease missiles range (7,600 km for 4 real REs and four heavy decoys payload - 24 targets in a four missiles salvo). S-400 regiment has 16 or 24 launchers (four missiles each) - 64 or 96 missiles in salvo which means they can intercept (with different probabilities) from 32 to 96 targets.

No American SLBM sub patrols so close to their target that the flight time is less than 10 minutes.

The distance between Ireland and Murmask region is approximately 2,600 km. With maximal attitude 1000 km and speed 7 km/s it is 500 sec. Ten minutes = 600 seconds.

We might send our attack subs that close on occasion, if a specific mission calls for it, but they aren't the ones carrying the nuclear missiles.

That's the point. What is even more important - those missiles are slow and vulnerable. US Navy still don't have hypersonic missiles, you know.

 

[Open Bolt]

Light decoys would be filtered out by the atmosphere, and heavy decoys decrease missiles range (7,600 km for 4 real REs and four heavy decoys payload - 24 targets in a four missiles salvo). S-400 regiment has 16 or 24 launchers (four missiles each) - 64 or 96 missiles in salvo which means they can intercept (with different probabilities) from 32 to 96 targets.

And the radar jamming?

The salvo will not be limited to four missiles.

The distance between Ireland and Murmask region is approximately 2,600 km. With maximal attitude 1000 km and speed 7 km/s it is 500 sec. Ten minutes = 600 seconds.

No US nuclear missile sub operates anywhere near that close to their targets.

That's the point.

So you agree that we do not send our nuclear missile subs anywhere near that close to their targets?

What is even more important - those missiles are slow and vulnerable. US Navy still don't have hypersonic missiles, you know.

That is incorrect. Our SLBMs have always been hypersonic.

 

[para bellum]

That is incorrect. Our SLBMs have always been hypersonic.

Yep. Typical ICBM warhead comes in at ~Mach 17.

10 seconds between entering the atmosphere and hitting the ground.

Stupid Russki fanboys. Hitler thought the V-2 was a superweapon too...

 

[Silver Cat]

And the radar jamming?

There are no radar jamming units in Trident II payload.

The salvo will not be limited to four missiles.

The maximum salvo launched by Ohio submarines was four missiles with time between launches was one-two minutes at least. The manned submarines are air bubbles in the water, and missile launches destabilize them.

No US nuclear missile sub operates anywhere near that close to their targets.

Really? Don't they? They visit Scotland and they, sometimes, patrol nearby.

So you agree that we do not send our nuclear missile subs anywhere near that close to their targets?

No. I said, that forward patrolling zones are quite agressive but pretty vulnerable positions. As well as Pearl Harbor was.

That is incorrect. Our SLBMs have always been hypersonic.

But our anti-ship and anti-sub missiles are not. And yes, American SLBMs still can't attack at supressed ballistic trajectory.

 

[BothWings]

Mitt's roll in 2012 was not to win but to incur fear and loathing that would fuel Obama's re-election. And he still has the same job working for the same people.

 

[Open Bolt]

There are no radar jamming units in Trident II payload.

Says who?

The maximum salvo launched by Ohio submarines was four missiles with time between launches was one-two minutes at least. The manned submarines are air bubbles in the water, and missile launches destabilize them.

That is incorrect. The maximum is all their missiles.

I forget the time between launches, and the exact number is probably classified, but it is less than a minute between launches.

Really? Don't they?

Correct. They do not patrol close to Russia.

They visit Scotland and they, sometimes, patrol nearby.

No. They patrol much farther away.

No. I said, that forward patrolling zones are quite aggressive but pretty vulnerable positions. As well as Pearl Harbor was.

They are not aggressive and are not vulnerable. They are remote and safe.

But our anti-ship and anti-sub missiles are not.

Those will not be the missiles carrying thermonuclear warheads into Russia.

And yes, American SLBMs still can't attack at suppressed ballistic trajectory.

Well, they probably could. We just see no reason to ever do so. A steeper trajectory is much superior at penetrating defenses.

 

[Silver Cat]

Says who?

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

That is incorrect. The maximum is all their missiles.

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

I forget the time between launches, and the exact number is probably classified, but it is less than a minute between launches.

Or, as it was recently - two days.

Correct. They do not patrol close to Russia.

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

No. They patrol much farther away.

When you keep your fleet at your side of a pond it means "Oh, I don't want any problems, do whatever you want to do at your side". When you send your fleet towards a bully it means "C'mon, boy, try to fight somebody of your own weight". Back in 1941 the enemy tried.

They are not aggressive and are not vulnerable. They are remote and safe.

Forward patrolling areas are aggressive and vulnerable. Backward patrolling areas are pure self-defensive (they are useless for the first counter-force strike) and more or less safe.

Those will not be the missiles carrying thermonuclear warheads into Russia.

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

Well, they probably could. We just see no reason to ever do so. A steeper trajectory is much superior at penetrating defenses.

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