Send Fighter Jets To The Ukraine.

[Silver Cat]

1. The Russians can't do anything against radar. The best they could do is shoot up a number of dummy warheads that would make taking them all out difficult.

2. Once NORAD found out that say Washington DC had been nuked by a missile fired from a submarine, they would unleash the dogs of war. It would be hard to say how many times after that Moscow would be directly nuked.

3. I don't know what in the hell you're getting at with "Russia's defense" decreasing the U.S. retaliation potential. It would make no difference. Also, do you live in some sort of dream world or something? If we did an all out nuclear attack on Russia, we would kill most Russians immediately. The rest would soon die. As well as the rest of most of the life on Earth as well. Next, Sure, some of the most important computers and things are guarded against an EMP. Like warships. Being encased in metal makes an excellent Faraday Cage. But as I said, most of the public's electronics would be fried.

4. The Ukraine isn't part of Russia. Though the alphabet they use is similar to the one that Russia uses, they even have their own language. And after the Holodomor, most of them probably want to be separate from Russia even more.

1. The Russians can do many things against radars. For example, they can degrade their capabilities by sabotage.
2. What NORAD can do if they found out that all silos, airbases and boomers' ports (as well as few boomers in the ocean) are already destroyed?
3. The really essential numbers are estimates of the damage the retaliatory forces can inflict after they have been hit and hit hard (The Pearl-Harbor scenario).
It is a Russian calculation in which the Russians hypothesize striking at a time and with tactics of their choosing. We strike back with a damaged and perhaps uncoordinated force, which must conduct its operations in the post-attack environnement. The Russians may use blackmail threats to intimidate our response. The Russian defense is completely alerted. Their active defense forces have been augmented and their cities are partially evacuated. They do different things to degrade our C3I capabilities. We should not always assume what Albert Wohlstetter has called "US preferred attacks" (like solely nuclear burst in Washington) in estimating the performance of our system. We should also look at "Ru preferred attack" - a sensible Russian planner may prefer them.
So, if they attack first (and kill less than one million of American civilians), and if after their attack we have only two Atlantic boomers survived (and 99% of our pre-war population as hostages), they may not worry about American possibility to destroy Moscow, and all what they should be worried about is the American capability to destroy smaller cities, say, Saint-Petersburg, Rostov or Voronezh. If those cities are already partially evacuated, and remaining population is sheltered, American retaliation strike can kill less than one million of Russians. And it is a quite good bargaining position for signing peace at their terms - less than 1% of the Russians and more than 90% of Americans as hostages.
4. Actually, when the Ukrainians had the choice between ethnic Ukrainian Poroshenko with his motto "Army!Language!Faith!" and Russian-speaking ethnic Jew (who lived and making business in Moscow for several years) Zelenskiy with motto "Allow people to speak their language and let's make the deal" - 73% of them chooses Zelenskiy. Most of Ukrainians don't care where exactly will be border between Russia and Ukraine and at what side from this border they will live. Most of them want to live, what to be wealthy and not discriminated.
Anyway. Cuba, definitely is not a part of the USA, but Soviet military forces, especially ballistic missiles, were totally unacceptable for the USA.

 

[KissMy]

1. The Russians can do many things against radars. For example, they can degrade their capabilities by sabotage.
2. What NORAD can do if they found out that all silos, airbases and boomers' ports (as well as few boomers in the ocean) are already destroyed?
3. The really essential numbers are estimates of the damage the retaliatory forces can inflict after they have been hit and hit hard (The Pearl-Harbor scenario).
It is a Russian calculation in which the Russians hypothesize striking at a time and with tactics of their choosing. We strike back with a damaged and perhaps uncoordinated force, which must conduct its operations in the post-attack environnement. The Russians may use blackmail threats to intimidate our response. The Russian defense is completely alerted. Their active defense forces have been augmented and their cities are partially evacuated. They do different things to degrade our C3I capabilities. We should not always assume what Albert Wohlstetter has called "US preferred attacks" (like solely nuclear burst in Washington) in estimating the performance of our system. We should also look at "Ru preferred attack" - a sensible Russian planner may prefer them.
So, if they attack first (and kill less than one million of American civilians), and if after their attack we have only two Atlantic boomers survived (and 99% of our pre-war population as hostages), they may not worry about American possibility to destroy Moscow, and all what they should be worried about is the American capability to destroy smaller cities, say, Saint-Petersburg, Rostov or Voronezh. If those cities are already partially evacuated, and remaining population is sheltered, American retaliation strike can kill less than one million of Russians. And it is a quite good bargaining position for signing peace at their terms - less than 1% of the Russians and more than 90% of Americans as hostages.
4. Actually, when the Ukrainians had the choice between ethnic Ukrainian Poroshenko with his motto "Army!Language!Faith!" and Russian-speaking ethnic Jew (who lived and making business in Moscow for several years) Zelenskiy with motto "Allow people to speak their language and let's make the deal" - 73% of them chooses Zelenskiy. Most of Ukrainians don't care where exactly will be border between Russia and Ukraine and at what side from this border they will live. Most of them want to live, what to be wealthy and not discriminated.
Anyway. Cuba, definitely is not a part of the USA, but Soviet military forces, especially ballistic missiles, were totally unacceptable for the USA.

Russia can't evacuate all their large cities, because there is nowhere for the population to go. They will freeze out in Siberia.

 

[Silver Cat]

Russia can't evacuate all their large cities, because there is nowhere for the population to go. They will freeze out in Siberia.

There are plenty of towns there. What is even more important - if they won initiative they can choose time for attack.

 

[dimensional]

1. The Russians can do many things against radars. For example, they can degrade their capabilities by sabotage.
2. What NORAD can do if they found out that all silos, airbases and boomers' ports (as well as few boomers in the ocean) are already destroyed?
3. The really essential numbers are estimates of the damage the retaliatory forces can inflict after they have been hit and hit hard (The Pearl-Harbor scenario).
It is a Russian calculation in which the Russians hypothesize striking at a time and with tactics of their choosing. We strike back with a damaged and perhaps uncoordinated force, which must conduct its operations in the post-attack environnement. The Russians may use blackmail threats to intimidate our response. The Russian defense is completely alerted. Their active defense forces have been augmented and their cities are partially evacuated. They do different things to degrade our C3I capabilities. We should not always assume what Albert Wohlstetter has called "US preferred attacks" (like solely nuclear burst in Washington) in estimating the performance of our system. We should also look at "Ru preferred attack" - a sensible Russian planner may prefer them.
So, if they attack first (and kill less than one million of American civilians), and if after their attack we have only two Atlantic boomers survived (and 99% of our pre-war population as hostages), they may not worry about American possibility to destroy Moscow, and all what they should be worried about is the American capability to destroy smaller cities, say, Saint-Petersburg, Rostov or Voronezh. If those cities are already partially evacuated, and remaining population is sheltered, American retaliation strike can kill less than one million of Russians. And it is a quite good bargaining position for signing peace at their terms - less than 1% of the Russians and more than 90% of Americans as hostages.
4. Actually, when the Ukrainians had the choice between ethnic Ukrainian Poroshenko with his motto "Army!Language!Faith!" and Russian-speaking ethnic Jew (who lived and making business in Moscow for several years) Zelenskiy with motto "Allow people to speak their language and let's make the deal" - 73% of them chooses Zelenskiy. Most of Ukrainians don't care where exactly will be border between Russia and Ukraine and at what side from this border they will live. Most of them want to live, what to be wealthy and not discriminated.
Anyway. Cuba, definitely is not a part of the USA, but Soviet military forces, especially ballistic missiles, were totally unacceptable for the USA.

Blah Blah Blah. Face it. A nuclear war isn't winnable. There would be Mutually Assured Destruction.

 

[Silver Cat]

Blah Blah Blah. Face it. A nuclear war isn't winnable. There would be Mutually Assured Destruction.

Wishful thinking and ignoring the facts. Any war is winnable.

 

[dimensional]

Wishful thinking and ignoring the facts. Any war is winnable.

Ho Wooly SHITTTTTTTTT!!!!! It would only take 5 to 7 nuclear bombs going off all at once to cause a nuclear winter. Don't you think that would bring about quite a death toll? And imagine what thousands would do.

 

[para bellum]

Wishful thinking and ignoring the facts. Any war is winnable.

Just not for Russia.

You can't even control the illegally annexed territories on your border.

You have Prigozhin calling for Russia to declare victory and call it quits, after having gutted his own PMC in Bakhmut.

Your "elite" formations have been reconstituted so many times they are now about as far from "elite" as you can get, over half are mobiks that have nothing in the way of advanced training.

Ukraine is stronger than it was before the invasion, and Russia is fielding 60 year-old tanks because 3/4 of the modernized equipment has been turned into scrap metal.

All you have are empty nuclear threats- no different, no more scary than North Korea. Putin's dream of restoring Russia's status as a superpower is a complete flop. He's even lost Russia's influence in Central Asia- those countries are all looking to China now.

Putin has reduced Russia's status to one of a Chinese resource colony. Zero political influence.

 

[Silver Cat]

Ho Wooly SHITTTTTTTTT!!!!! It would only take 5 to 7 nuclear bombs going off all at once to cause a nuclear winter. Don't you think that would bring about quite a death toll? And imagine what thousands would do.

Sure, it wouldn't. Nuclear bursts by themselves won't change climate in any direction. There were plenty of them back in 50-70s. The very conception of nuclear winter is based on several assumptions:
1) "Both sides will attack (and will not defend) cities of each other." It's wrong assumption, because both sides prefer counter-force attack as plan A.
2) "There will be massive fires in the attacked cities." It's wrong assumption, because under typical circumstances in modern cities modern warheads cause much larger demolition radius than ignition radius, and, therefore, most of fires will be "smouldering in rubble".
3) "Those numerous fires will unite in one super-firestorm". This is false assumption , because in a modern city and suburbs great firestorm is impossible. It needs very dense wooden and paper building.
4) "Those super firestorms will throw ash in stratosphere." It's false assumption because super firestorms, with their extremely high temperature doesn't generate any ash. They just oxidize all organic to carbon dioxide and water vapour.
5) "All that ash in stratosphere will cause decreasing of world's temperatures". This is false assumption because their models ignore carbon dioxide and water vapour (both from fires and direct evaporation of water caused by the nuclear bursts). And those gases cause global warming, not global freezing.
6) "This climate change will cause global catastrophe". Few degrees temperature change can't cause really serious catastrophe by itself. Winter (even three years long winter) doesn't cause death of the peoples and collapse of the states. Unpreparedness does.
If you have significant national reserves of food and fuel - you have much better bargain position than if haven't. Anyway, the world war winner will be able to use resources of the whole world to alleviate any consequences and the loser (in all-out war), likely, will be too dead to care about "nuclear winter" or "nuclear summer" or "fallouts", or "ozone holes", or "extinction of whales" or any other crap.

 

[Silver Cat]

Just not for Russia.

You can't even control the illegally annexed territories on your border.

You have Prigozhin calling for Russia to declare victory and call it quits, after having gutted his own PMC in Bakhmut.

Your "elite" formations have been reconstituted so many times they are now about as far from "elite" as you can get, over half are mobiks that have nothing in the way of advanced training.

Ukraine is stronger than it was before the invasion, and Russia is fielding 60 year-old tanks because 3/4 of the modernized equipment has been turned into scrap metal.

All you have are empty nuclear threats- no different, no more scary than North Korea. Putin's dream of restoring Russia's status as a superpower is a complete flop. He's even lost Russia's influence in Central Asia- those countries are all looking to China now.

Putin has reduced Russia's status to one of a Chinese resource colony. Zero political influence.

I don't say that Russia will certainly win the nuclear war. I say, that Biden hardly can win it by ignoring the facts and by self-comforting himself.

 

[dimensional]

Sure, it wouldn't. Nuclear bursts by themselves won't change climate in any direction. There were plenty of them back in 50-70s. The very conception of nuclear winter is based on several assumptions:
1) "Both sides will attack (and will not defend) cities of each other." It's wrong assumption, because both sides prefer counter-force attack as plan A.
2) "There will be massive fires in the attacked cities." It's wrong assumption, because under typical circumstances in modern cities modern warheads cause much larger demolition radius than ignition radius, and, therefore, most of fires will be "smouldering in rubble".
3) "Those numerous fires will unite in one super-firestorm". This is false assumption , because in a modern city and suburbs great firestorm is impossible. It needs very dense wooden and paper building.
4) "Those super firestorms will throw ash in stratosphere." It's false assumption because super firestorms, with their extremely high temperature doesn't generate any ash. They just oxidize all organic to carbon dioxide and water vapour.
5) "All that ash in stratosphere will cause decreasing of world's temperatures". This is false assumption because their models ignore carbon dioxide and water vapour (both from fires and direct evaporation of water caused by the nuclear bursts). And those gases cause global warming, not global freezing.
6) "This climate change will cause global catastrophe". Few degrees temperature change can't cause really serious catastrophe by itself. Winter (even three years long winter) doesn't cause death of the peoples and collapse of the states. Unpreparedness does.
If you have significant national reserves of food and fuel - you have much better bargain position than if haven't. Anyway, the world war winner will be able to use resources of the whole world to alleviate any consequences and the loser (in all-out war), likely, will be too dead to care about "nuclear winter" or "nuclear summer" or "fallouts", or "ozone holes", or "extinction of whales" or any other crap.

Look it up for yourself. They say that all it would take is 5 to 7 nuclear bombs going off all at once. Over the years there have been hundreds of nuclear bombs set off. But not all at once. And many of them were underground tests. Where it wouldn't effect the atmosphere much.

 

[Silver Cat]

Look it up for yourself. They say that all it would take is 5 to 7 nuclear bombs going off all at once. Over the years there have been hundreds of nuclear bombs set off. But not all at once. And many of them were underground tests. Where it wouldn't effect the atmosphere much.

You can start with wikipedia.

Nuclear winter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

-------------------
After the failure of the predictions on the effects of the 1991 Kuwait oil fires that were made by the primary team of climatologists that advocate the hypothesis, over a decade passed without any new published papers on the topic. More recently, the same team of prominent modellers from the 1980s have begun again to publish the outputs of computer models. These newer models produce the same general findings as their old ones, namely that the ignition of 100 firestorms, each comparable in intensity to that observed in Hiroshima in 1945, could produce a "small" nuclear winter.[6][12] These firestorms would result in the injection of soot (specifically black carbon) into the Earth's stratosphere, producing an anti-greenhouse effect that would lower the Earth's surface temperature. The severity of this cooling in Alan Robock's model suggests that the cumulative products of 100 of these firestorms could cool the global climate by approximately 1 °C (1.8 °F), largely eliminating the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming for the next roughly two or three years. Robock has not modeled this, but has speculated that it would have global agricultural losses as a consequence.[13]

As nuclear devices need not be detonated to ignite a firestorm, the term "nuclear winter" is something of a misnomer.[14] The majority of papers published on the subject state that without qualitative justification, nuclear explosions are the cause of the modeled firestorm effects. The only phenomenon that is modeled by computer in the nuclear winter papers is the climate forcing agent of firestorm-soot, a product which can be ignited and formed by a myriad of means.[14] Although rarely discussed, the proponents of the hypothesis state that the same "nuclear winter" effect would occur if 100 large scale conventional firestorms were ignited.[15]

-------------------

Atmospheric effects of nuclear bursts are well known and well calculated. The bursts in almost unpopulated territories won't deliver soot into stratosphere. The firespreading in cities.

 

[dimensional]

You can start with wikipedia.

Nuclear winter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

-------------------
After the failure of the predictions on the effects of the 1991 Kuwait oil fires that were made by the primary team of climatologists that advocate the hypothesis, over a decade passed without any new published papers on the topic. More recently, the same team of prominent modellers from the 1980s have begun again to publish the outputs of computer models. These newer models produce the same general findings as their old ones, namely that the ignition of 100 firestorms, each comparable in intensity to that observed in Hiroshima in 1945, could produce a "small" nuclear winter.[6][12] These firestorms would result in the injection of soot (specifically black carbon) into the Earth's stratosphere, producing an anti-greenhouse effect that would lower the Earth's surface temperature. The severity of this cooling in Alan Robock's model suggests that the cumulative products of 100 of these firestorms could cool the global climate by approximately 1 °C (1.8 °F), largely eliminating the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming for the next roughly two or three years. Robock has not modeled this, but has speculated that it would have global agricultural losses as a consequence.[13]

As nuclear devices need not be detonated to ignite a firestorm, the term "nuclear winter" is something of a misnomer.[14] The majority of papers published on the subject state that without qualitative justification, nuclear explosions are the cause of the modeled firestorm effects. The only phenomenon that is modeled by computer in the nuclear winter papers is the climate forcing agent of firestorm-soot, a product which can be ignited and formed by a myriad of means.[14] Although rarely discussed, the proponents of the hypothesis state that the same "nuclear winter" effect would occur if 100 large scale conventional firestorms were ignited.[15]

-------------------

Atmospheric effects of nuclear bursts are well known and well calculated. The bursts in almost unpopulated territories won't deliver soot into stratosphere. The firespreading in cities.

Try this on for size.

www.survivaljunkies.com › how-many-nukes-causeHow Many Nukes Would It Take to Cause a Nuclear Winter?

 

[KissMy]

 

[dimensional]

What has that to do with sending fighter jets to the Ukraine.

 

[Silver Cat]

Try this on for size.

www.survivaljunkies.com › how-many-nukes-causeHow Many Nukes Would It Take to Cause a Nuclear Winter?

Do you mean, that we should believe to every noname in the internet? Didn't you buy the Brooklyn Bridge on-line? I've read it's quite cheap nowadays. There were few pseudo-scientific works by Cagan-Alexandrov group, just another wave of environmentalistic eschatologie with quite obvious mistakes.
Just read original works.