Russia is a Super Power: Opinion on The Hill

[Siberian]

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"?
What if Russia and China attack the USA simultaneously and already weakened retaliation strike will be divided to all Shanghai Pact countries?

it is all not serious

 

[Silver Cat]

it is all not serious

Do you want to say, that your president is a joker?

 

[Siberian]

Do you want to say, that your president is a joker?

I want to say that your radicalism would better fit very young people, probably getting older you will change your views

Putin is the least radical in Russia

 

[AZrailwhale]

I don't ask with what the US may retaliate, but against what targets?

will the US start nuclear war against Russian territory to get 100% own destruction?

The initial targets would be any base or ship that launched an attack.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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

None of those things would disable an American strike. The SSBNs are kept at sea, destroying Kitsap and King's Bay would do nothing except kill a bunch of dependents and enrage the sub crews. By the time any Russian missiles could range on US Bomber bases, all the aircraft would be airborne and on the way to Russian targets. US missiles would be launched as soon as the Russian missiles were launched, and Russia would cease to exist.

 

[Silver Cat]

None of those things would disable an American strike. The SSBNs are kept at sea, destroying Kitsap and King's Bay would do nothing except kill a bunch of dependents and enrage the sub crews. By the time any Russian missiles could range on US Bomber bases, all the aircraft would be airborne and on the way to Russian targets. US missiles would be launched as soon as the Russian missiles were launched, and Russia would cease to exist.

The Launch under Attack demands at least twenty minutes (with Sleepy Joe as the POTUS - much more). The flight time of SS-N-32 at supressed ballistic trajectory from North Pole to FE Warren AFB - seven minutes.

 

[rightwinger]

The Launch under Attack demands at least twenty minutes (with Sleepy Joe as the POTUS - much more). The flight time of SS-N-32 at supressed ballistic trajectory from North Pole to FE Warren AFB - seven minutes.

Won’t change anything
The US can send too many warheads from too many directions

Russia would be wiped out

 

[AZrailwhale]

The Launch under Attack demands at least twenty minutes (with Sleepy Joe as the POTUS - much more). The flight time of SS-N-32 at supressed ballistic trajectory from North Pole to FE Warren AFB - seven minutes.

You're assuming a "bolt from the blue" attack. That wouldn't happen, with tensions ramping up the US would go to an advanced alert status and could launch within seconds or minutes of a confirmed Russian launch.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The Launch under Attack demands at least twenty minutes (with Sleepy Joe as the POTUS - much more). The flight time of SS-N-32 at supressed ballistic trajectory from North Pole to FE Warren AFB - seven minutes.

The Russians have a total of FIVE Borei class subs that can carry that missile and they can only carry sixteen each. The missile has a failure rate of about fifty percent meaning effectively the subs can only carry the equivalent of eight missiles each. That's FORTY missiles at best assuming the Borei's can launch before being destroyed, which is far from certain.

 

[Silver Cat]

Won’t change anything
The US can send too many warheads from too many directions

Russia would be wiped out

No. If the first Russian strike is successful, they destroyed all Minutemen, B-2A, B-52, both naval bases with SSBNs, and, may be, few SSBNs in sea...
All you have their attack is few SSBNs in at least two different Oceans. For example, survived one SSBN in Atlantic on a hard duty - twenty missiles, two of them with 8 kt W72-2 warheads, and, say, 12 with four 90 kt W-76-1 each, and 6 with four 455 kt W88 each.
It means, that you have only 72 effective warheads. And the Russians in the Moscow region have more than a hundred of counter-missiles. So, you can't burn down Moscow.
Yes, you still can destroy say, Saint-Petersburg. But then, Russians will destroy all American cities by their third strike.
So, if you have only one SSBN in Atlantic (after the first Russian strike) , your bargaining position is pretty poor. So, there is a good chance, that you'll agree with quite generous Russian peace proposals. That's exactly what the Russians call post-attack coercion into peace.

 

[Silver Cat]

The Russians have a total of FIVE Borei class subs that can carry that missile and they can only carry sixteen each. The missile has a failure rate of about fifty percent meaning effectively the subs can only carry the equivalent of eight missiles each. That's FORTY missiles at best assuming the Borei's can launch before being destroyed, which is far from certain.

Five Borei's x 16 missiles x 10 150kt warheads (we supposed, that the sneaky Russians violated New Start treaty) = 800 warheads for the first wave.
Plus four Delta IV + one Delta III x 16 SS-N-23 x 10 500kt warheads = 800 warheads in the second wave.
Pretty enough against 500-point target system.

 

[rightwinger]

No. If the first Russian strike is successful, they destroyed all Minutemen, B-2A, B-52, both naval bases with SSBNs, and, may be, few SSBNs in sea...
All you have their attack is few SSBNs in at least two different Oceans. For example, survived one SSBN in Atlantic on a hard duty - twenty missiles, two of them with 8 kt W72-2 warheads, and, say, 12 with four 90 kt W-76-1 each, and 6 with four 455 kt W88 each.
It means, that you have only 72 effective warheads. And the Russians in the Moscow region have more than a hundred of counter-missiles. So, you can't burn down Moscow.
Yes, you still can destroy say, Saint-Petersburg. But then, Russians will destroy all American cities by their third strike.
So, if you have only one SSBN in Atlantic (after the first Russian strike) , your bargaining position is pretty poor. So, there is a good chance, that you'll agree with quite generous Russian peace proposals. That's exactly what the Russians call post-attack coercion into peace.

That is quite ambitious

Especially when you don’t know where they are

 

[Silver Cat]

That is quite ambitious

Especially when you don’t know where they are

Of course, they know. Minutemen are immobile,

Naval bases Kitsap and Kings Bay, AF bases Minot and Whiteman are also well known and immobile. Searching for SSBNs is a bit more complicated problem, but with Garmoniya naval survey system, auxiliary recon ships, underwater drones, satellites, hackers and US Navy traitors they have good chances to solve it. They don't need to have 100% assurance that all SSBNs are preciously located and will be destroyed, it's good enough just to decrease the US potential retaliation strike to more or less acceptable numbers.

 

[Silver Cat]

And yes, targets for the counter-value strike are also well known:
For example, here are both counter-force and counter-value targets (one of options):

 

[fncceo]

Russia is a Super Power​

And Aquaman is a superhero ... just an incredibly lame one...

 

[Bleipriester]

And Aquaman is a superhero ... just an incredibly lame one...

View attachment 584746

The facts are here, you can´t get around them, this is why all one can do against the Russian military is threatening with sanctions.

 

[Silver Cat]

You're assuming a "bolt from the blue" attack. That wouldn't happen, with tensions ramping up the US would go to an advanced alert status and could launch within seconds or minutes of a confirmed Russian launch.

No. I tell, first of all, about pessimistic scenario, which, we, looks like, are actually playing now - the USA just ignore all Russian preparation to war (considering them as "bluff") , and continue extremely provocative actions (from the Russian point of view) in the Eastern Europe. The Administration does nothing to prepare to large-scale war, neither to lower the tensions, and this is a direct way to a catastrophe.
And yes, American politicians' skills of the wishful thinking and self-comforting explanations are really amazing.
Any attack will be "bolt from the blue" if you consider Russian nuclear attack as something "unthinkable".

 

[rightwinger]

Of course, they know. Minutemen are immobile,
View attachment 584737
Naval bases Kitsap and Kings Bay, AF bases Minot and Whiteman are also well known and immobile. Searching for SSBNs is a bit more complicated problem, but with Garmoniya naval survey system, auxiliary recon ships, underwater drones, satellites, hackers and US Navy traitors they have good chances to solve it. They don't need to have 100% assurance that all SSBNs are preciously located and will be destroyed, it's good enough just to decrease the US potential retaliation strike to more or less acceptable numbers.

And you think all of our weapons are in silos?
Hitting naval bases doesnt work when the cruise missiles are on ships. Not to mention the SSBNs or the weapons that will already be airborne on bombers. Not to mention retaliation from our allies

Russia would see over 1000 warheads
Is it worth it?

 

[Silver Cat]

And you think all of our weapons are in silos?
Hitting naval bases doesnt work when the cruise missiles are on ships. Not to mention the SSBNs or the weapons that will already be airborne on bombers. Not to mention retaliation from our allies

Russia would see over 1000 warheads
Is it worth it?

I don't need to 'think', I can read. The USA don't have neither mobile ground missiles, nor naval cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. And yes, I'm pretty sure, that our so called allies won't commit suicide just to retaliate for us.

 

[Silver Cat]

Is it worth it?

Yes, it is the main question. From one hand even flawless victory will hurt Russia, and even 'acceptable' price can be terrible. From other hand alternatives (like further militarization of the Eastern Europe or uncontrollable escalation) may be even more dangerous (from their point of view).