Russia simulate NUKING Europe with missiles hitting in 200 seconds and 'no survivors'

[Open Bolt]

If there is, it means the end of Russia and triumph of the West.

Well it would be the end of the West too.

But yes, it would certainly be the end of Russia.

It would be the end of pretty much everyone.

 

[Open Bolt]

1. If Russia nuked a few military targets in the UK and/or France - the USA obviously won't commit murder-suicide and launch a couner-value strike against Russia. The USA will try to find a diplomatic solution which will be pretty close to 'acception of local defeat'

If the strikes against the UK or France are military in nature, the retaliation against Russia would target their military as well. So you are correct that it would not be countervalue.

But no. The US will not accept any sort of local defeat. As soon as we upload our hedge warheads and generate all our bombers and submarines, our bombers will nuke Russian military targets and achieve damage comparable to whatever Russia inflicted on our NATO allies (or on us).

at least because the USA don't have enough tactical nukes to fight and win a nuclear war in Europe.

We do not need tactical nukes to destroy the Russian military. Strategic nukes will do just fine.

With the hedge stockpile added back to active duty, we will have 44 B52 bombers assigned a nuclear mission with 12 ALCMs each. That's 528 Air Launched Cruise Missiles with 150 kiloton warheads.

We will also have 16 B2 bombers assigned nuclear missions with 16 bombs each. So that is 256 bombs with a yield of 340 kilotons. And we'll be able to reload each B2 with more bombs after it drops its first 16 bombs.

Presumably out of a total of 528 150 kiloton warheads and 256 (or more) 340 kiloton bombs, our bombers will have enough weapons to be able to damage Russia equally as severely as any damage that Russia inflicts on our NATO allies (or on us).

2. Talking about massive counter-force strikes.
2.a. There are some possible circumstances under which the Russians can launch a successful counter-force strike , which will decrease retaliation capabilities of the USA to 'definitely acceptable level'.

Only if Russia finds it acceptable for our already-deployed submarines to destroy their 300 largest cities and cause the extinction of the Russia people. No Russian counterforce strike will be able to prevent our already-deployed submarines from carrying out such a countervalue attack if they are ordered to do so.

Russia's military will come to an end as well. As soon as we detect an imminent counterforce attack on our ICBMs, all of our ICBMs will be launched in a massive counterforce attack against Russia.

And once our hedge warheads are added back to active weapons and our military is on alert, Russia will not be able to launch a successful counterforce attack. Our subs will all be in the ocean, our bombers will scramble on notice of an incoming attack, and our ICBMs will still launch a massive counterforce attack as soon as we detect an imminent attack on them (only now our ICBMs will have twice as many warheads).

Currently we have 200 ICBMs with a single MX missile warhead (no MIRV bus), and 200 ICBMs with a single Minuteman III warhead (MIRV bus included for rapid uploading), for a total of 400 ICBM warheads.

When our hedge warheads are added back, we'll have 200 ICBMs with a single MX missile warhead, and 200 ICBMs with three-warhead MIRVs, for a total of 800 ICBM warheads.

2.b There are almost no possible circumstances under which the USA can launch a successful counter-force strike, which will decrease retaliation capabilities of Russia to 'definitely acceptable level'.

We don't care. If Russia is already nuking either us or our NATO allies (or both), we will nuke Russia regardless of the consequences.

3. Talking about counter-value strikes and recuperation capabilities.
3.a. Russia is big (and resource rich), cold (which means their houses have thick walls), their EMERCOM is effective (and have an experience of city evacuations) , they have significant state reserves of material resources (including food, fuel, metals and so on), what is even more important - they have plenty of naturally rich and military weak neighbors (including China, India and EU).

Our already-deployed submarines have enough to flatten Russia's 300 largest cities. The radiation, ozone depletion, and nuclear winter will take care of the survivors.

3.b. The USA are smaller than Russia, have denser population, FEMA is ineffective, state reserves don't deserve a mention, significant part of the population can't do anything useful and closest neighbours are already poor.

We don't care. If Russia starts nuking us and/or our NATO allies, we will nuke Russia in retaliation regardless of the consequences.

4. Talking about the stakes.
4.a. The European war is, literally, a question of life and death for the Russians.

It is nothing of the sort. Russia is trying to conquer their neighbors out of pure aggression.

The invasion of Chechnya was pure Russian aggression.

The invasion of Georgia was pure Russian aggression.

The invasion of Ukraine is pure Russian aggression.

4.b. The European war is a question of political profit for some corrupted American politicians only.

That is incorrect. Helping Ukraine is about keeping Russia too busy to invade our NATO allies.

If Russia attacks a NATO ally, our response to that will be about protecting NATO.

The USA can survive without Europe.

Maybe we could. But it is not what we choose.

We choose to fight to the death to save our NATO allies. And if that means that we all die, we will at least all die knowing that all Russians are dying along with us.

 

[alexa]

1. If Russia nuked a few military targets in the UK and/or France - the USA obviously won't commit murder-suicide and launch a couner-value strike against Russia. The USA will try to find a diplomatic solution which will be pretty close to 'acception of local defeat' at least because the USA don't have enough tactical nukes to fight and win a nuclear war in Europe.

If Russia nuked a few targets in the UK? Please. Russia is correctly saying it could kill all the people of the UK with one nuke and it is just deciding whether to do that or set up a nuclear tidal wave. Russia is not going to do what you suggest and doing so would still result in serious after affects.

4.a. The European war is, literally, a question of life and death for the Russians.
4.b. The European war is a question of political profit for some corrupted American politicians only. The USA can survive without Europe.

This is not primarily a European War. This was an arrangement set up by the US. My guess is the reason the EU has become actively involved at this time is because it now has several East European countries and they are at risk due to this Russian action. However you are still trying to create a situation where you believe it will be fine for Russia to nuke Europe or the UK and get away with it. A nuclear attack on either the UK or Europe would result in an immediate response from the US,UK and France. Your attempt to suggest Russia could do a little attack on the UK and we and others would stand by till they decided where they would nuke next is a non starter and that is particularly because Russia has nukes which it is believed can avoid our censors. That is first strike nukes. All that is necessary is for the US/France and UK to believe Russia is about to fire its nukes for ours to go.

Silver cat are you Russian? I can't see how it makes sense for anyone else to be advocating Russia be able to have a limited nuclear war against the west and get away with it and if we go back to your initial text on this your belief that it would be better for Russia to do this and 'win' a limited nuclear war rather than lose a conventional one.

 

[Open Bolt]

or set up a nuclear tidal wave.

Russia's tiny little tsunami torpedo is really pathetic.

A proper tsunami weapon has a gigaton yield. Russia can't manage more than 100 megatons. And it's a crude and unsophisticated 100 megatons at that.

 

[Turtlesoup]

I don't know what he considers an excuse to use nukes, but we are not about to abandon Ukraine.

If Putin loses Ukraine and has nothing to show for it---the other oligarths will kill him. Putin nuking Europe might be his only option---a protracted war which he hopes is enough to keep him alive.

 

[alexa]

If Putin loses Ukraine and has nothing to show for it---the other oligarths will kill him. Putin nuking Europe might be his only option---a protracted war which he hopes is enough to keep him alive.

how can you know that? As things stand he is the one who chooses to put them in prison or kill them. They I hear are in the main basically criminals so I am guessing you are thinking if Putin gets nothing they lose money? It looks to me like Putin will not be going away empty handed despite the Russian military not living up to expatiations. He is taking most of the east and the areas with water and ports. That would make Ukraine landlocked and cause famine in some areas of Africa. Then of course some kind of fighting will go on forever. They have destroyed a lot of Ukraine in particular Mariupol. Putin can say he has destroyed the neo nazis and freed the 'Russian' areas in the East. I hear almost all the people of Russia believe that Putin is doing a marvellous job from what they hear through their state run news which is all they can get. So what makes you think his Oligarch inferiors would want to and be able to kill him. Nukes are not to be used for people's egos. That is insanity.