Putin warns Russia will be at war with NATO if leaders lift Ukraine missile restrictions

[Zavulon]

Carriers are national assets. If Russia sinks an American carrier, at a minimum, Russia will lose the base that launched the weapons that killed the carrier, if the missile comes from a ship or submarine, the attacking vessel will be killed as well as the base it is assigned to as well. It would take many, possible a hundred missiles or more to penetrate the defenses of a carrier battle group and sink a carrier. We have been practicing defending them against missile swarm attacks by Russia ever since the fifties.

And what if Russia destroys all your MMIII silos, all your strategic bombers and almost all your SSBNs?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Really? Do you have any specific reason to believe it, short for your wishful thinking and stupid CNN-propaganda?


And what if they are not bluffing?

Then everybody in the northern hemisphere dies.

 

[Zavulon]

Then everybody in the northern hemisphere dies.

Because of what? Ktulhu will be woken or what? First Russian counter-force strike will kill less than 5 mln (may be less than 0,5 mln) of Americans. American anemic counter-value retaliation (even if America rejects Russian peace proposals and retaliate) will kill less than 10 mln of Russians. May be even lesser than 1 mln if the Russians are well prepared. Then, Russia will start a bombing campaign against the USA until the USA is unconditionally surrender. How many Americans will die then - depends exclusively on American government and people. I doubt that they will bear more than 30% losses and even if the Russians will be too pissed off to accept even US unconditional surrender (I very doubt it) they won't have a technical capability to kill more than 90% of US population.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Because of what? Ktulhu will be woken or what? First Russian counter-force strike will kill less than 5 mln (may be less than 0,5 mln) of Americans. American anemic counter-value retaliation (even if America rejects Russian peace proposals and retaliate) will kill less than 10 mln of Russians. May be even lesser than 1 mln if the Russians are well prepared. Then, Russia will start a bombing campaign against the USA until the USA is unconditionally surrender. How many Americans will die then - depends exclusively on American government and people. I doubt that they will bear more than 30% losses and even if the Russians will be too pissed off to accept even US unconditional surrender (I very doubt it) they won't have a technical capability to kill more than 90% of US population.

By the time your first missile lands, ALL of our land based ones will have launched, the B-2s will be airborne each carrying enough nuke gravity bombs to kill sixteen Russian cities or other targets. The carriers will be steaming into range of Russia in both the Atlantic and Pacific to launch second strikes on any remaining Russian targets and all the SSGNs, SSBNs and SSNs will have launched their hundreds of warheads. B-1s and B-52s will launch with whatever weapons they can be loaded with quickly. Within hours or days at most, the Chinese will invade Siberia and conquer it.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Not necessarily.

Yes necessarily and absolutely

 

[AlexanderPK]

gravity bombs

If you drop a bomb from a plane it just falls, what other than that can you expect from it? You drop a brick it falls on your foot regardless of whether you know who Newton was or gravity laws exist. Why is a freaking mundane simple run of the mill bomb gravity bomb all of a sudden? If anything it's a free falling bomb, because there are bombs with wings that are not very much free in expressing their will to fall. Does the definition add gravity to the damage the bomb inflicts? Does it, genius?

 

[Zavulon]

Yes necessarily and absolutely

Because of what? "Death Star" will hyperjump in Solar System and destroy the Earth?

 

[Zavulon]

By the time your first missile lands, ALL of our land based ones will have launched, the B-2s will be airborne each carrying enough nuke gravity bombs to kill sixteen Russian cities or other targets. The carriers will be steaming into range of Russia in both the Atlantic and Pacific to launch second strikes on any remaining Russian targets and all the SSGNs, SSBNs and SSNs will have launched their hundreds of warheads. B-1s and B-52s will launch with whatever weapons they can be loaded with quickly. Within hours or days at most, the Chinese will invade Siberia and conquer it.

Bla-bla-bla. The flight time of SLBM from M'Clure strait or IRBM from Cuba is less that eight minutes. Good luck to take off even one strategic bomber (say nothing about allowing them to came close to the Russian airspace). And no, US Fleet doesn't have cruise missiles with nuclear warheads anymore.
And what is even more important - are you really ready to fight a nuclear war (however you calculate your chances to win) just to allow a bunch of Kievan clowns genocide the local Russians?

 

[Deadstick]

Carriers are national assets. If Russia sinks an American carrier, at a minimum, Russia will lose the base that launched the weapons that killed the carrier, if the missile comes from a ship or submarine, the attacking vessel will be killed as well as the base it is assigned to as well. It would take many, possible a hundred missiles or more to penetrate the defenses of a carrier battle group and sink a carrier. We have been practicing defending them against missile swarm attacks by Russia ever since the fifties.

It only needs one missile like the Sunburn to get through and the carrier is history, the big US carriers have a ships company of about five thousand, i believe Carriers have been just about obsolete since my Uncle served on HMS Victorious as a Oerlikon gunner in WW2, in the battle of Okinawa the ship was hit by three Kamikazi, only thing they are good for now is intimidating small Countries that can't fight back.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Because of what? "Death Star" will hyperjump in Solar System and destroy the Earth?

No because of the reality of nuclear war.

The russians CANNOT stop a full scale retaliation which would destroy them

 

[Zavulon]

No because of the reality of nuclear war.

Its not "reality". It's just an environmentalistic myth, nothing more.

The russians CANNOT stop a full scale retaliation which would destroy them

Why not? It's not that difficult, especially with the modern anemic US nuclear arsenals. And yes, if Biden's "sanctions" didn't destroy Russia's economy, why his "retaliation strike" will? Especially if the said "full scale retaliation" means only few salvos of obsolete and aging Trident-II missiles (half of them will be intercepted by Russian ABD and another half will cause relatively modest damage).

 

[Soupnazi630]

Its not "reality". It's just an environmentalistic myth, nothing more.

Why not? It's not that difficult, especially with the modern anemic US nuclear arsenals. And yes, if Biden's "sanctions" didn't destroy Russia's economy, why his "retaliation strike" will? Especially if the said "full scale retaliation" means only few salvos of obsolete and aging Trident-II missiles (half of them will be intercepted by Russian ABD and another half will cause relatively modest damage).

It is reality it is not myth

The US arsenal is not anemic it is very close to the russians in scael and better in technology

Those trident missiles are not obselete and cannot be easily intercepted. Nor can minute man missiles or missile / bombs from stealth aircraft


They would cause damage which cannot be survived. Nukes to not get weaker with age

You are massively uninformed about this subject

 

[Zavulon]

It is reality it is not myth

Bla-bla-bla. Can you bet Alaska and California on that?

The US arsenal is not anemic it is very close to the russians in scael and better in technology

No. There is more a less numerical parity in strategic warheads. But the USA lacks the whole genders of strategic systems - like Ground Launched Mobile ICBMs or "strategic torpedoes". What is even more important - when two guys with more or less equal guns came to shoot each other - it doesn't necessarily means that both of them are dead. Much more often one of them (who shoot first) is alive and unharmed and another is dead.
And yes, the sides' abilities to evacuate, shelter, protect, patch and recuperate are as well important.

Those trident missiles are not obselete and cannot be easily intercepted. Nor can minute man missiles or missile / bombs from stealth aircraft

Of course they are.

They would cause damage which cannot be survived. Nukes to not get weaker with age

But our abilities to deal with them - by tgeir preempive elimination, evacuation and sheltering our population, recuperating damage, medical treatment of wounded and so on, are increasing.
And no, solid fuel is aging. That's why (as some people say) two last launches of British (in fact American) Tridenta failed.

You are massively uninformed about this subject

Really? And what about you, Mr. Expert?

 

[AZrailwhale]

If you drop a bomb from a plane it just falls, what other than that can you expect from it? You drop a brick it falls on your foot regardless of whether you know who Newton was or gravity laws exist. Why is a freaking mundane simple run of the mill bomb gravity bomb all of a sudden? If anything it's a free falling bomb, because there are bombs with wings that are not very much free in expressing their will to fall. Does the definition add gravity to the damage the bomb inflicts? Does it, genius?

A gravity bomb as opposed to a glide bomb or missile. Both are designed to keep the launching aircraft out of the AA or SAM acquisition basket.

 

[AZrailwhale]

It only needs one missile like the Sunburn to get through and the carrier is history, the big US carriers have a ships company of about five thousand, i believe Carriers have been just about obsolete since my Uncle served on HMS Victorious as a Oerlikon gunner in WW2, in the battle of Okinawa the ship was hit by three Kamikazi, only thing they are good for now is intimidating small Countries that can't fight back.

One missile WITH A NUCLEAR WARHEAD. With conventional warheads it will take a half dozen or more hits to disable a modern carrier. Even more to sink one.

 

[Zavulon]

One missile WITH A NUCLEAR WARHEAD. With conventional warheads it will take a half dozen or more hits to disable a modern carrier. Even more to sink one.

Yes, of course. The direct war between Russia and America with decisive goals will be nuclear anyway. But the difference between Russia and the USA is that Russia has anti-ship cruise missiles with nuclear warheads and the USA haven't.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yes, of course. The direct war between Russia and America with decisive goals will be nuclear anyway. But the difference between Russia and the USA is that Russia has anti-ship cruise missiles with nuclear warheads and the USA haven't.

What makes you think that? We have harpoons with nuclear warheads and Mk 48 ADCAP torpedoes with nuclear warheads as well. There are even nuclear warheads for Asroc and Subroc ( or at least there used to be when I was active duty). There are even aircraft on the carrier have at least twice the range of the longest ranged Russian anti-ship missile. And to penetrate the defenses of a Carrier Battlegroup, it would take multiple dozens of nuclear tipped cruise missiles. That’s multiple dozens that actually launch and track and hopefully detonate. The USN has been practicing defeating Russian swarm cruise missile attacks since the mid-fifties, it is very good at it.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Bla-bla-bla. Can you bet Alaska and California on that?

No. There is more a less numerical parity in strategic warheads. But the USA lacks the whole genders of strategic systems - like Ground Launched Mobile ICBMs or "strategic torpedoes". What is even more important - when two guys with more or less equal guns came to shoot each other - it doesn't necessarily means that both of them are dead. Much more often one of them (who shoot first) is alive and unharmed and another is dead.
And yes, the sides' abilities to evacuate, shelter, protect, patch and recuperate are as well important.


Of course they are.


But our abilities to deal with them - by tgeir preempive elimination, evacuation and sheltering our population, recuperating damage, medical treatment of wounded and so on, are increasing.
And no, solid fuel is aging. That's why (as some people say) two last launches of British (in fact American) Tridenta failed.


Really? And what about you, Mr. Expert?

No they are not obselete dumbass

they work fine and russia is not surpassing anyone with technology

Your anaology ot two men coming together is a massive fail. It does not compare two counteis shooting mukes from the other side of the globe. They have no ability to stop those missiles and planes

Mutually assured destruction is still the order of the day

I am no expert i am simply better than you with your massive ignorance

 

[Zavulon]

What makes you think that? We have harpoons with nuclear warheads and Mk 48 ADCAP torpedoes with nuclear warheads as well. There are even nuclear warheads for Asroc and Subroc ( or at least there used to be when I was active duty). There are even aircraft on the carrier have at least twice the range of the longest ranged Russian anti-ship missile. And to penetrate the defenses of a Carrier Battlegroup, it would take multiple dozens of nuclear tipped cruise missiles. That’s multiple dozens that actually launch and track and hopefully detonate. The USN has been practicing defeating Russian swarm cruise missile attacks since the mid-fifties, it is very good at it.

For example, official US statements.
The only tactical nukes the US posses nowadays are B61 gravity bombs.

 

[Zavulon]

No they are not obselete dumbass

they work fine and russia is not surpassing anyone with technology

Are you sure?

Your anaology ot two men coming together is a massive fail. It does not compare two counteis shooting mukes from the other side of the globe. They have no ability to stop those missiles and planes

They have ability to a) kill missiles and planes before they are launched; b) intercept at least some of them; c) alleviate consequences of the strike.

Mutually assured destruction is still the order of the day

No. Even in the worst possible scenario its far from "MAD".

I am no expert i am simply better than you with your massive ignorance

I see (sarcasm).