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

[AZrailwhale]

Most of those 384 will be destroyed by the first Russian strike. As I said - the typical US warhead is 90 kt W76-1. And the radius of the total destruction for 455 kt warhead is only roughly 1.7 times larger than for 90 kt.

How are you going to destroy Ohio Class submarines that you can’t even find? And the danger from a nuclear warhead is much more than the area of complete destruction. If I remember correctly from EOD School where we studied CBR damage and danger zones, the major damage zone of a nuke is more that thirty times the diameter of the total destruction zone, plus a downwind fallout area lethal to humans in the long run that can reach a hundred miles or more from an airburst.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Most of those 384 will be destroyed by the first Russian strike. As I said - the typical US warhead is 90 kt W76-1. And the radius of the total destruction for 455 kt warhead is only roughly 1.7 times larger than for 90 kt.

No they will not

They all sumarine based that is what SSBN means. The Russians would not find a single sub at sea

The radius is not relevant the destructive power Russia would be doomed and have no chance for a first strike yoy fantasixe about

 

[AZrailwhale]

People do work about all of them. How sucessfully - the war will demonstrate. But even bad our counter-force strike is better (for us) than the first strike of Americans.

No, they can't. Russia is big and 40-400 warheads will hurt it, but definitely not "destroy". What is even more important... If you, even after our counter-force strike (after which you have no any chance to "win" the war) still determined to attack Russia, and if you are going to attack Russia immediately (refusing Russian suggestion about two days humanitarian pause to evacuate at least children from the cities) - then you are definitely irrational, and it was good idea to kill you before you tried to kill us.

If you believe that your SSBNs are really invulnerable in the ocean (its not true, of course), and their nukes are absolutely devastating, its quite rational to accept himanitarian pause and evacuate your children.

You don’t know Americans. There would be no pause, and any president who didn’t immediately launch a massive retaliatory strike would be impeached in less than an hour and his VP would launch the strike.

 

[AZrailwhale]

People do work about all of them. How sucessfully - the war will demonstrate. But even bad our counter-force strike is better (for us) than the first strike of Americans.

No, they can't. Russia is big and 40-400 warheads will hurt it, but definitely not "destroy". What is even more important... If you, even after our counter-force strike (after which you have no any chance to "win" the war) still determined to attack Russia, and if you are going to attack Russia immediately (refusing Russian suggestion about two days humanitarian pause to evacuate at least children from the cities) - then you are definitely irrational, and it was good idea to kill you before you tried to kill us.

If you believe that your SSBNs are really invulnerable in the ocean (its not true, of course), and their nukes are absolutely devastating, its quite rational to accept himanitarian pause and evacuate your children.

Russia is big, but your population is concentrated in a few cities. One MIRVed missile to each city and Russia would be depopulated. The survivors of the strike would starve or die from radiation poisoning. Of course that assumes that corrupt Russian civil defense officials hadn’t stolen the money meant to maintain the shelters in your subways.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Russia is big, but your population is concentrated in a few cities. One MIRVed missile to each city and Russia would be depopulated. The survivors of the strike would starve or die from radiation poisoning. Of course that assumes that corrupt Russian civil defense officials hadn’t stolen the money meant to maintain the shelters in your subways.

Those subway shelters were early cold war relics. It was assumed in the 1950s that shelters could be used as protecion from nukes. We know better now and they are merely crypts

 

[AZrailwhale]

We'll see.

No. The most typical Trident II warhead is W76-1, it is 90 kt.
View attachment 1051562

EIGHT W-76s per Trident. That’s 720 kilotons if my mental math is correct.

 

[AZrailwhale]

We were more or less successfuly finding them in 1970-80s. It's not that it was easy, it demanded some tricks, but it was possible (and now it is much easier). So, if the Russia is the aggressor and keep initiative at least one or two of your Atlantic SSBNs are dead at the first strike. If China is also in game and their "civilian fishermen" share information with Russia (or Chinese "auxiliary cruisers" covertly participate in it) - it is plus (or minus?) one or two US SSBNs in Pacific.

In the seventies and eighties Russian attack boats were so noisy that they could be tracked from a hundred miles away. Our sensors and processing gear was far in advance of Russia’s and we couldn’t locate Ohio class boats.
Plus Russia right now has a total of 4 Akula, 2 Sierra and 2 Victor operational and they are kept close to home to defend your SSBN fleet.

 

[Rigby5]

Russia is still a long way from nuclear being the only option. That just results in both sides losing everything.

America needs to deal with the fact that Russia holds weapons superiority, along with the ability to produce invincible weapons faster than Nato combined.

Make no mistake, China is not sitting idly by. The Brics has now assumed world power and America has itself into a fight to regain it.

I did not mean to imply that nuclear retaliation was not absolute, but the long range missile attacks "can lead to" all out nuclear war.
That is because these missiles could be used to knock out oil refineries or other invaluable resources.
And it is then that nuclear war would be inevitable.

 

[Rigby5]

No they will not

They all sumarine based that is what SSBN means. The Russians would not find a single sub at sea

The radius is not relevant the destructive power Russia would be doomed and have no chance for a first strike yoy fantasixe about

The Russians can and do track our submarines from submerges listening devices that hear the propeller noise.
Many of our submarines would instantly get knocked out.

 

[Rigby5]

You don’t know Americans. There would be no pause, and any president who didn’t immediately launch a massive retaliatory strike would be impeached in less than an hour and his VP would launch the strike.

Does not matter.
The US is extremely vulnerable to EMPs that knock out all microcircuits, like cellphones, computers, cars, etc.
That would even take out all our utilities, since they are computer controlled.

Russia is not vulnerable.
They prefer shielding, macro circuits, duplicates, manual controls, spread out resources, etc., so they can survive a nuclear strike that we can not survive.

 

[Rigby5]

Russia is big, but your population is concentrated in a few cities. One MIRVed missile to each city and Russia would be depopulated. The survivors of the strike would starve or die from radiation poisoning. Of course that assumes that corrupt Russian civil defense officials hadn’t stolen the money meant to maintain the shelters in your subways.

No, Russia is deliberately and carefully spread out.
And no, nukes cannot "depopulate".
With warning, bunkers can be used to prevent any significant death toll.
The most significant destruction is from the EMP that knocks out microcircuits.
And Russia is careful to prevent reliance on microcircuits, while we do not.

 

[Rigby5]

Russia is big, but your population is concentrated in a few cities. One MIRVed missile to each city and Russia would be depopulated. The survivors of the strike would starve or die from radiation poisoning. Of course that assumes that corrupt Russian civil defense officials hadn’t stolen the money meant to maintain the shelters in your subways.

Wrong.
Russia always deliberately spread out its population and is NOT concentrated in just a few cities.
The survivors have escape routes planned to the country, and would easily survive.
You only shelter for a few days, until the radiation is gone.

 

[Rigby5]

Those subway shelters were early cold war relics. It was assumed in the 1950s that shelters could be used as protecion from nukes. We know better now and they are merely crypts

Wrong.
Shelters work fine, and they are fully functional.
Its the US that gave up on shelters because we have so many other vulnerabilities, like microcircuits.

 

[Zavulon]

Plus the silos are designed to endure a nuclear hit

Not direct nuclear hit.

and stay operational and the B-2s and B-1s can be dispersed to civilian airports in time of high international tensions.

If you believe that there are high international tensions (that the Russians are not bluffing) you, first must think - are you really ready to fight a nuclear war and do you have a chance to win it with acceptable price. Isn't it better to leave Ukraine as you left Vietnam and Afghanistan?

The Russians are not going to damage the USA’s nuclear triad before it is committed to battle.

Really? We'll see.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The Russians can and do track our submarines from submerges listening devices that hear the propeller noise.
Many of our submarines would instantly get knocked out.

No they cannot and do not

You consistently pull crap like that from your ass

You are a liar

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Shelters work fine, and they are fully functional.
Its the US that gave up on shelters because we have so many other vulnerabilities, like microcircuits.

Wrong

They were designed in the fifties and wrthless aghainst nukes

We realized that they are worthless

they have as many vulnerabilities DUMBASS

 

[Shareprofit]

The US and the UN started this debacle when they began threatening Russia with their encirclement and containment policies with using Ukraine as an operating military base. When Russia responded, as we might have done to a corrupt satellite state threat to their security, we were told that Russia attacked for no reason. People of course lined up to help the poor people in the news, whipped on bu the state media. Now our leaders are saying they are considering missile strikes deep inside Russia, and once again the headlines will scream that it was an unprovoked attack when Russia defends itself. What would we do if someone was firing missiles into our country? Not everyone just drops their borders and lets it run wild, we are exceptional. This time I do think it will not be so easy to obscure the truth when the violence come here, but it will be too late.

Bullshit you liar. Putin invaded Ukraine.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Russia always deliberately spread out its population and is NOT concentrated in just a few cities.
The survivors have escape routes planned to the country, and would easily survive.
You only shelter for a few days, until the radiation is gone.

It is not spread out

There is no such planned escape route and radiation from nukes lasts for centuries you total liar

 

[the watcher]

Bullshit you liar. Putin invaded Ukraine.

Believe what you will, but you may need a historyectomy to be fully functional.

 

[Zavulon]

EIGHT W-76s per Trident. That’s 720 kilotons if my mental math is correct.

Eight W-76 is maximal payload. Maximal payload means minimal launch distance. And minimal launch distance means the highest vulnerability of the SSBN for the preempive attack. There is the reason why they usually bear much lesser amounts of warheads. Three warheads that you can launch is much better than eight warheads that you can't launch. Especially if you don't plan to attack first and want to keep your retaliation capability.