Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Mutually Assured DestructionRussia has ABD (more than 100 missiles in Moscow region) and S-400 and S-500 can intercept incoming MIRVs in atmosphere. Russian population is particularly evacuated, particularly - in shelters. "Moscow subways - the largest bunker in the world! ". You still can destroy Moscow and kill one million Russian civilians (high price, but absolutely acceptable for them). But then the Russian will launch anti-value strikes and kill, say, half of American population in few days.
You are Biden. The Russians have eliminated 90% of your arsenal, killed less than 5 million Americans, but 327 million people are still alive. You still have 150 warheads, you can make a jesture - destroy Moscow, but then your country will be totally destroyed. Or you can accept Russian peaceful proposals - dismiss NATO, return Alaska, be a poor small nuclear state like the modern UK, don't attack anybody else.
What would you choose? To kill less than one million Russians and 150-250 million Americans or to save the USA (significant part of it)?
They call it "post-attack coercion into peace".
Actually they said it (and wrote in the doctrine) in 1982. And they officially changed their mind in 1999.The Russians made very clear they are not the ones launching the first strike.
Actually - no. There were many different conceptions from Nuclear Tripwire to Protracted War...Mutually Assured Destruction
If you use nuclear weapons against the US, we will retaliate with everything we got. If you think you could survive that with only a million dead, you are delusional
Our policy is the same as it has been for 70 years
Yes, Russian can survive with totally destroyed Moscow and with one million killed.Mutually Assured Destruction
If you use nuclear weapons against the US, we will retaliate with everything we got. If you think you could survive that with only a million dead, you are delusional
Our policy is the same as it has been for 70 years
Yes, Russian can survive with totally destroyed Moscow and with one million killed.
Napoleon burned Moscow and lost the war. Tokhtamysh burned Moscow and lost the war. Devlet I Giray burned Moscow and lost the war.
Gleb Rostislavovich burned Moscow and lost the war.
Nazariy Chistiy burned Moscow and lost the war.
Biden can burn Moscow, too, but then the half of American population will be dead, and the state almost totally destroyed.
Russians just rebuild it. Moscow is important, of course, but victory in a war is much more important.
Concentration of fire to overwhelm Antiballistic Defense. Launch less than 100 warheads against Moscow and they will intercept all of them for sure. 120 - ok, there are some chances that several warheads will break through the defense, but Moscow is a big city, and you need more than several 90 kt warheads to fubar it.In what world do you think Moscow would be our only target in all of Russia?
You are overly optimistic in the ability to intercept missiles, bombers and cruise missilesConcentration of fire to overwhelm Antiballistic Defense. Launch less than 100 warheads against Moscow and they will intercept all of them for sure. 120 - ok, there are some chances that several warheads will break through the defense, but Moscow is a big city, and you need more than several 90 kt warheads to fubar it.
Anyway, look at the density of population in Russia. There are only two really valuable targets - Moscow and Saint-Petersburg agglomerations.
View attachment 580381
Actually, A-235 and S-500 can intercept not only ICBMs, but satellites, too. And yes, it's not just me. What is more important, that the Russians believe in it, and, according it, they would make a jump of faith...You are overly optimistic in the ability to intercept missiles, bombers and cruise missiles
Actually, A-235 and S-500 can intercept not only ICBMs, but satellites, too. And yes, it's not just me. What is more important, that the Russians believe in it, and, according it, they would make a jump of faith...
They believe that they can (step by step):That is some jump of faith
If they actually believe they can intercept a large proportion of incoming nuclear attacks, they will pay a price
The US has better missile defense systems, but we realize they would not save us from an attack
if ifs and buts were candy and nuts!!!!!what will the US do if Russia nukes 10 US military bases abroad?
In the Middle East for example..
and says that any nuclear strike against Russian territory will lead to full scale nuclear destruction of entire USA...
I wonder why are you so sure talking on behalf of Russian military?They believe that they can (step by step):
1) Destroy significant part of the US nuclear arsenal;
2) Destroy a large proportion of a weakened retaliation strike;
4) Alleviate consequences of a twice weakened nuclear attack;
5) Destroy all large US cities, win the peace.
And there is a good chance, that they are right.
Why not? Do you really think, that all Pindoses are stupid, ignorant degradants?I wonder why are you so sure talking on behalf of Russian military? 
Both sides prefer to protect their own citizens rather than to kill other's civilians. And a counter-force strike is the best way to do it. That's why Russia developed the new precise SLBMs with supressed ballistic trajectory and stealth long-range cruise missiles.as I remember quite the contrary, first "whiping out" strike is what the US dreams of and why it tries to bring its bases as close to Russian border as possible, and why it is major concern of Russia, and why it is not going to tolerate Ukraine's alliance with NATO.
Actually even between 1982 and 1994 Soviet-Russian doctrine wasn't pure retaliatoryBesides, it's the US which does not include nuclear preemptive strike, Russian military doctrine is based on retaliatory nuclear strike.
Really? Not "Valiant Russian Warriors, destroying military targets" and "Anglo-Saxon cowards, murders of innocent civilians"?This is the picture, aggressive USA and peaceful Russia.
гладко было на бумаге, да забыли про оврагиWhy not? Do you really think, that all Pindoses are stupid, ignorant degradants?
View attachment 583010
Both sides prefer to protect their own citizens rather than to kill other's civilians. And a counter-force strike is the best way to do it. That's why Russia developed the new precise SLBMs with supressed ballistic trajectory and stealth long-range cruise missiles.
Actually even between 1982 and 1994 Soviet-Russian doctrine wasn't pure retaliatory
Really? Not "Valiant Russian Warriors, destroying military targets" and "Anglo-Saxon cowards, murders of innocent civilians"?
What would you choose - to kill one American submarine with 160 sailors, protect, say, 10 million Russian civilians and win the war, or to kill 10 million American civilians, allow Americans to kill 10 million Russians and came into stalemate?
Man, I don't say that Russian or American military are enthusiastic about a big (or even small) war. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, for example, is so unenthusiastic that he even found a Covid-19 in himself... Issue is that sometimes a war is a lesser evil.гладко было на бумаге, да забыли про овраги
military usually are the least enthusoasts about big wars - and not without reason..
except idiots like Grachev, which promiced Yeltsyn to capture Grozny with a platoon within a day or something..
indeed, but not in the way you say. successful preemptive strike in curent conditions is an illusion, especially for Russia. and it is not on Russian agenda, contrarily to what you are saying.Man, I don't say that Russian or American military are enthusiastic about a big (or even small) war. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, for example, is so unenthusiastic that he even found a Covid-19 in himself... Issue is that sometimes a war is a lesser evil.
It's not that Russia can destroy 100% of the American nuclear arsenal at any given moment. But, after some proper preparations (successfully ignored by the wishful thinking part of American establishment), they can:indeed, but not in the way you say. successful preemptive strike in curent conditions is an illusion, especially for Russia. and it is not on Russian agenda, contrarily to what you are saying.
if the US moves to Russian border, if the US has hypersonic missiles - then it may become possible forvthe US, and this is the reason it is a thick Russian red line.
talking about Russian preemptive nuclear strike is a bluf, and frankly saying a senseless one, why to bluf if you have all other nesessary and real means to make your enemy retreat...
there are more than 2 powers in the World and if Russian power/popalation/industrial capacity is halved it loses anyway.It's not that Russia can destroy 100% of the American nuclear arsenal at any given moment. But, after some proper preparations (successfully ignored by the wishful thinking part of American establishment), they can:
1) to destroy all Minitemen silos, B-52 and B-2 airbases, naval bases Kitsap and Kings Bay, and, may be, few Ohio-class submarines in the ocean. And then try to coerce the USA into peace and prevent the retaliation strike;
2) to intercept significant part of incoming Trident warheads;
3) to alleviate consequences of the twice weakened retaliation strike by their Emercom (MChS) and recuperate with their state reserves and foreign support.
Have you read new commented Russian translation of Herman Kahn "On Thermonuclear war"?
О термоядерной войне (Ярослав С.)
Мы живём в интересное время. Любое время по своему интересно, но именно наше интересно тем, что человечество, после нескольких столетий непрерывного роста (как материального богатства, так и численности населения), основанного на освоении всё новых и новых природных ресурсов, вплотную подошло...aftershock.news
If the USA is totally destroyed, Russian power/population/industrial capacity is halved, and all other countries are intact - yes. But what if Russia can coerce the USA into peace (and prevent retaliation strike) or keep potential losses less than 1 million? What level of losses is acceptable by the Russian society? 40 millions? How do you say? "We can repeat"?there are more than 2 powers in the World and if Russian power/popalation/industrial capacity is halved it loses anyway.
it'a dangerous delusion you have.
