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

[krichton]

Both America & Russia(then USSR) lost a lot of their peoples during WW2 in a effort to save Europa from itself(nutzism). The Euro-peons just can't let go of the socialism(self enslavement) religion & their worship of their almighty elitist officials. From what I have read Russia puts roughly 70% of it's military budget into both determent & first strike nuclear capability including their SSBM's(Submerged Ship Ballistic Missile). The remaining 30% of Russia's defense budget goes into conventional(non nuclear) military capability. "IF" this is true it may be the primary reason WHY the Russian conventional military forces did not perform as well as expected in the Ukraine.

Russia Submarine Capabilities

Overview of Russia's submarine capabilities and import-export behavior.

www.nti.org

Russia has the largest inventory of nuclear weapons of any country in the world. If push comes to shove Russia has nukes of all types by the numbers no less.

Nuclear Weapons by Country 2024

Trying to NATOize countries that border Russia was a serious mistake in my opinion like I preferred the neutral states bordering Russia strategy. Too late now as the cat's out of the bag & it looks like we as humanity cannot get that cat back into the bag. This can only go two ways, statesmanship & an end to current hostilities in eastern Europa, or the situation in eastern Europa heats up to the boiling point. Just pray for peace as advances in weapons technology has made another world war a sure fire loser for all of humanity.

No one is "trying" to "NATOize" countries. If a country wants to join NATO that is your prerogative and choice. No one is pushed to join NATO. If anything, it is aggression like what we've seen from Russia which forces countries to seek membership.

The russian military is underperforming because of horrible top down leadership, bad tactics, bad information, bad strategy, terrible training and lastly widespread corruption. Virtually everything we've ever known about Russian military capability has been a lie. Their nukes are probably missing critical expensive pieces no one even knows is missing because they've been stolen in order to be sold off somewhere. Who would know unless the nukes are actually used, and by then, who would even care? That is what has happened to their tanks, for example. Tanks in reserve have had parts stripped, which are not easily replaced and are now impossible to do so due to sanctions. Most of the tanks that are still usable are out on the battlefield now. Once they're gone, they're gone and Russia has possibly lost upwards of half of them in 2+ months of fighting. Putin wants this war to end ASAP before he loses everything.

 

[Open Bolt]

How do you know that?

Also, what does "better" even mean?

 

[there4eyeM]

I am unsure what you mean by waiting him out.

If he nukes a NATO target, Russia goes away forever.



So be it.

Dead is not being.
Not giving him an excuse to use nukes and biding time until he dies is waiting him out, obviously.

 

[Open Bolt]

Dead is not being.
Not giving him an excuse to use nukes and biding time until he dies is waiting him out, obviously.

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

 

[José]

Originally posted by krichton
No one is "trying" to "NATOize" countries. If a country wants to join NATO that is your prerogative and choice. No one is pushed to join NATO. If anything, it is aggression like what we've seen from Russia which forces countries to seek membership.

Poor NATO...

The military organization was minding its own business when it was suddenly approached by a tearful Hungary, Poland, Estonia begging:

Please NATO, protect us from big, bad Russia.

We are supposed to accept that NATO was "moved" by their emotional appeals and decided to help them out of the goodness of its heart.

Far from us to imagine that America and its subordinate western european countries saw Eastern Europe as useful pawns in their geopolitical strategy of militarily surrounding Russia's western borders.

 

[Open Bolt]

Poor NATO...
The military organization was minding its own business when it was suddenly approached by a tearful Hungary, Poland, Estonia begging:
Please NATO, protect us from big, bad Russia.
We are supposed to accept that NATO was "moved" by their emotional appeals and decided to help them out of the goodness of its heart.
Far from us to imagine that America and its subordinate western european countries saw Eastern Europe as useful pawns in their geopolitical strategy of militarily surrounding Russia's western borders.

No one cares what Russia believes or accepts. Russia can go ahead and believe a conspiracy theory about Elvis and space aliens for all we care.

If Russia nukes a NATO target, all Russians will be slaughtered without mercy.

The end.

 

[Silver Cat]

Only if winning means all of their cities flattened and all of their people killed.

There are 1117 cities in Russia, most of them needs more than one warhead, and the USA have only 1500 warheads deployed. What is even more important - there are ABD and ersatz-ABD in Russia, their EMERCOM is quite effective, they have plenty of state reserves for recuperate after nuclear attack, and last but not least - they can destroy significant part of the US nuclear arsenal by their first strike.

If Russia nukes a NATO target, we won't give them a limited nuclear war. We will give them total annihilation.

Even if this NATO country attacked Russia first without direct American order or permission?

What is even more importan there is no technical possibility totally annihilate Russia (at least now).

Killing 30 million Russians sounds like a nice start.

No. In the Mad Butcher scenario (out of blue attack against the sleeping Russian cities without any counter-force attack) their nuclear forces remains untouched and their revenge strike kills more than 100 millions of Americans and totally destroy US ability to produce nukes. Mad Butcher is a classical useless murder-suicide. All reasonable scenarios are started with a counter-force strike.

If they do that, the only acceptable response is to kill everyone in Russia.

No. We shouldn't commit murder-suicide just for lulz.

 

[surada]

Poor NATO...

The military organization was minding its own business when it was suddenly approached by a tearful Hungary, Poland, Estonia begging:

Please NATO, protect us from big, bad Russia.

We are supposed to accept that NATO was "moved" by their emotional appeals and decided to help them out of the goodness of its heart.

Far from us to imagine that America and its subordinate western european countries saw Eastern Europe as useful pawns in their geopolitical strategy of militarily surrounding Russia's western borders.

Why would anyone want to surround Russia?

 

[Silver Cat]

Why would anyone want to surround Russia?

To be able to defeat them in the next war, of course.

 

[surada]

To be able to defeat them in the next war, of course.

Watch Putin's Way on PBS. Invading countries is so yesterday... so primative. Imperialism is so passe. Putin is a shrimp. He's never done anything for Russia.

 

[Silver Cat]

Watch Putin's Way on PBS. Invading countries is so yesterday... so primative. Imperialism is so passe. Putin is a shrimp. He's never done anything for Russia.

Yes, sure. Tell it to folks in Syria, Libya, Serbia, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Vietnam and many, many others.
And yes, Putin done pretty much for Russia.

 

[Open Bolt]

There are 1117 cities in Russia, most of them needs more than one warhead, and the USA have only 1500 warheads deployed.

We will only need to destroy their 300 largest cities in order to destroy Russia. And we don't need to destroy 100% of the suburbs to destroy a city. Leaving a ring of small buildings on the outskirts is OK. It is only Moscow and Leningrad that we want to totally flatten with absolutely nothing left.

It won't be 1500 deployed. Before launching nukes, we would upload all our hedge warheads onto our ICBMs, upload all our hedge bombs and cruise missiles onto our bombers and then get them in the air, and upload hedge warheads onto any submarine that was in port or near port and then get them out into the ocean.

I don't know what the exact total of deployed warheads would be. It would be 3500 if we uploaded all hedge weapons, but I suspect we that would leave out any submarines that were deep into their patrols.

What is even more important - there are ABD and ersatz-ABD in Russia, their EMERCOM is quite effective, they have plenty of state reserves for recuperate after nuclear attack,

If Russia thinks that they will survive a nuclear war, they will be in for an unpleasant surprise.

and last but not least - they can destroy significant part of the US nuclear arsenal by their first strike.

Not likely. If there is an immediate danger that our ICBMs are under attack then we will launch them against counterforce targets.

The SLBMs will be safely at sea and our bombers will be in the air.

Even if this NATO country attacked Russia first without direct American order or permission?

Russia is always the aggressor.

What is even more important there is no technical possibility totally annihilate Russia (at least now).

We have more than enough firepower to flatten Russia's 300 largest cities.

No. In the Mad Butcher scenario (out of blue attack against the sleeping Russian cities without any counter-force attack) their nuclear forces remains untouched and their revenge strike kills more than 100 millions of Americans and totally destroy US ability to produce nukes. Mad Butcher is a classical useless murder-suicide. All reasonable scenarios are started with a counter-force strike.

We have enough to be able to launch a counterforce strike and still be able to destroy Russia's 300 largest cities.

No. We shouldn't commit murder-suicide just for lulz.

It wouldn't be just for the lulz. It would be because Russia used nuclear weapons against a NATO target.

 

[para bellum]

...Their nukes are probably missing critical expensive pieces no one even knows is missing because they've been stolen in order to be sold off somewhere.

I always like to get the take of the logistics guys. This is a good thread by Trent Telenko on Russia's nukes. His numbers are a little outdated- we are spending about $18Bn/Yr on maintaining the active nuclear stockpile, but his point is still valid. Nukes need regular maintenance...

https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/doe-fy2023-budget-volume-1-nnsa.pdf

 

[Dalia]

It will not save them. Even if they live they will be killed bybthe radiation.

They are idiots if they believe its winnable. Only issue to me is if Putin is dying and wants the world to die with him.

Hes threatened to use nukes enough that he might be insane

I think you are maybe right ? And here at the French media there are saying that he could have a cancer ? i have no idea if this is true or not ?

 

[Silver Cat]

We will only need to destroy their 300 largest cities in order to destroy Russia. And we don't need to destroy 100% of the suburbs to destroy a city. Leaving a ring of small buildings on the outskirts is OK. It is only Moscow and Leningrad that we want to totally flatten with absolutely nothing left.

In the previous war the Germans destroyed more than 2000 Russian cities and towns, and lost the war. Napoleon burned down Moscow, and lost the war. Tokhtamysh burned down Moscow and lost the war. Total destruction of Moscow needs more than few hundreds nukes, many of them will be intercepted by the Moscow region ABD and it don't guarantee victory in the war.

It won't be 1500 deployed. Before launching nukes, we would upload all our hedge warheads onto our ICBMs, upload all our hedge bombs and cruise missiles onto our bombers and then get them in the air, and upload hedge warheads onto any submarine that was in port or near port and then get them out into the ocean.

So, you lost time and the Russians have their cities evacuated, population sheltered and, may be, they will attack your military targets first.

I don't know what the exact total of deployed warheads would be. It would be 3500 if we uploaded all hedge weapons, but I suspect we that would leave out any submarines that were deep into their patrols.



If Russia thinks that they will survive a nuclear war, they will be in for an unpleasant surprise.

It depends.

Not likely. If there is an immediate danger that our ICBMs are under attack then we will launch them against counterforce targets.

The timing is a problem. If you raise the readiness of the nuclear forces, and the Russians raise the readiness of their nuclear forces - both sides must try to attack first. And in this situation the Russians have an advantage.

The SLBMs will be safely at sea and our bombers will be in the air.

Both of them may be vulnerable from Russian Cepalopods and MiG-31 with long-range AA missiles.

Russia is always the aggressor.

Ok. Let's play game. Russia attacked Ukraine, Russia is an agressor. But Britain, without permission from the USA, decided to attack Russian cruiser somewhere in Baltic sea. As respond, the Russians evacuated their cities, moved their mobile ICBMs if forests, their submarines in sea, and then destroyed HMNB Clyde by a nuclear strike (20 thousands of Brits are dead). You can search for peace and prevent the all out war, or you can commit murder-suicede and kill, say, 5 millions of the Russians, but then they'll kill 100 millions of Americans and 200 millions more will die in one year because American economy don't have enough reserves to recuperate after such an attack.

So, do you really think, that the Brits have right to keep Americans as hostages?

We have more than enough firepower to flatten Russia's 300 largest cities.



We have enough to be able to launch a counterforce strike and still be able to destroy Russia's 300 largest cities.

No. Actually, if the Russians are more or less ready, the USA can't significantly decrease their nuclear power.

It wouldn't be just for the lulz. It would be because Russia used nuclear weapons against a NATO target.

No. The only reason why Britain and France have their own nukes - because it is another safety element. The USA must have choice - to fight or not to fight.

 

[Open Bolt]

In the previous war the Germans destroyed more than 2000 Russian cities and towns, and lost the war. Napoleon burned down Moscow, and lost the war. Tokhtamysh burned down Moscow and lost the war. Total destruction of Moscow needs more than few hundreds nukes, many of them will be intercepted by the Moscow region ABD and it don't guarantee victory in the war.

A nuclear strike against Russian cities will do more damage than all previous wars combined, and will do it all at once.

A few hundred nukes all at once will be enough for the total destruction of Moscow. Many will be intercepted, but many will get through.

So, you lost time and the Russians have their cities evacuated, population sheltered and, may be, they will attack your military targets first.

I doubt that they will have all that much success evacuating their cities. But we can take out their bunkers just fine.

It depends.

If Russia nukes a NATO target, Russia will die and will stay dead.

The timing is a problem. If you raise the readiness of the nuclear forces, and the Russians raise the readiness of their nuclear forces - both sides must try to attack first. And in this situation the Russians have an advantage.

I see no advantage for Russia. I assume that if they have already nuked a NATO target, their forces will already be at maximum readiness, but so what?

I also see no reason for us to attack first. Any sub that is in the middle of the ocean will be safe. Any bomber that is in the air will be safe. The ICBMs can be launched as soon as we see that they are under immediate attack.

Both of them may be vulnerable from Russian Cepalopods and MiG-31 with long-range AA missiles.

Our subs will be far in the middle of the ocean nowhere near any Russian weapons.

Ok. Let's play game. Russia attacked Ukraine, Russia is an agressor. But Britain, without permission from the USA, decided to attack Russian cruiser somewhere in Baltic sea. As respond, the Russians evacuated their cities, moved their mobile ICBMs if forests, their submarines in sea, and then destroyed HMNB Clyde by a nuclear strike (20 thousands of Brits are dead). You can search for peace and prevent the all out war, or you can commit murder-suicede and kill, say, 5 millions of the Russians, but then they'll kill 100 millions of Americans and 200 millions more will die in one year because American economy don't have enough reserves to recuperate after such an attack.

If Russia nukes the UK, the US will nuke Russia on a very large scale.

So, do you really think, that the Brits have right to keep Americans as hostages?

I do not see that situation as being the Brits holding us as hostages.

If I saw US citizens as hostages at all, I would see Russia as the hostage takers.

But US citizens are not hostages. We are allies of the UK, and are willing to die in a nuclear war if Russia ever launches a nuclear attack against the UK.

Remember that term from the Cold War: "Better Dead Than Red"?

No. Actually, if the Russians are more or less ready, the USA can't significantly decrease their nuclear power.

We can however commit genocide against Russia and end them once and for all.

No. The only reason why Britain and France have their own nukes - because it is another safety element. The USA must have choice - to fight or not to fight.

If a NATO target is attacked, we choose fight.

 

[Open Bolt]

MiG-31 with long-range AA missiles.

This won't help with an immediate war, but we are developing a new generation of stealth cruise missile for our stealth bombers to carry.

Air Force awards contract for new long-range missile system

Air Force awarded Engineering and Manufacturing Development contract for its Long Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon to Raytheon Missiles and Defense on July 1, 2021.

www.afnwc.af.mil

In the future our stealth bombers will not have to get close to a target in order to nuke it. And if an airbase still poses a threat to our stealth bombers even with them staying distant from targets, that airbase itself can be targeted with these new stealth cruise missiles.

The number of missiles that we will build has not yet been decided, but we made 1750 ALCM nuclear warheads during the Cold War, so we can easily make as many as 1750 of these new missiles.

We also are making a sub-launched version for our attack submarines to carry. We made 367 SLCM nuclear warheads during the Cold War, so we can easily make 367 nuclear SLCMs.

 

[eagle1462010]

This won't help with an immediate war, but we are developing a new generation of stealth cruise missile for our stealth bombers to carry.

Air Force awards contract for new long-range missile system

Air Force awarded Engineering and Manufacturing Development contract for its Long Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon to Raytheon Missiles and Defense on July 1, 2021.

www.afnwc.af.mil

In the future our stealth bombers will not have to get close to a target in order to nuke it. And if an airbase still poses a threat to our stealth bombers even with them staying distant from targets, that airbase itself can be targeted with these new stealth cruise missiles.

The number of missiles that we will build has not yet been decided, but we made 1750 ALCM nuclear warheads during the Cold War, so we can easily make as many as 1750 of these new missiles.

We also are making a sub-launched version for our attack submarines to carry. We made 367 SLCM nuclear warheads during the Cold War, so we can easily make 367 nuclear SLCMs.

Glad your sorry ass is no where near the big red button............Now go play in traffic.

 

[Open Bolt]

Glad your sorry ass is no where near the big red button............

Don't worry. We elect presidents to push that button for us.

Now go play in traffic.

We will erase Russia if they nuke a NATO target no matter how much Russia whines about it.

 

[eagle1462010]

Don't worry. We elect presidents to push that button for us.



We will erase Russia if they nuke a NATO target no matter how much Russia whines about it.

MAD principle........that you keep clearly ignoring.